Jump to content

Update of the F-5E to the F-5N level?


Kongamato

Update of the F-5E to the F-5N level?  

454 members have voted

  1. 1. Update of the F-5E to the F-5N level?



Recommended Posts

Well I wrote a lot, but deleted it.

 

You would be hard pressed to find any two airplanes exactly alike unless you got them right off the production line. It would also be hard to get drawings that match up to the hardware you are looking at.

 

I think they did a good job on the F-5E. I also think that if it represents a range of aircraft rather than one single type, they should have an option for air refueling.

 

 

 

No that's It's called standardization.

 

The only thing is that some nations had more specific requirements for some additional features. Others had thier own in house post production upgrades.

 

The "drawings" or such diagrams of avionics and cockpits and airframe features are all in the manuals.

 

It's not hard pressed if you actually stick to a specific production block, for a specific version of 1 country.

 

You might rationalize this as acceptable, but others may not. Consistency and accuracy is important. This isnt blunder of war.

 

In particular Developers like ED or heatblur have been very specific as to features that go with corresponding aircraft for specific nations

 

Usn/usmc f18c or thier upcoming usaf/ang viper arent getting features mixed from some of the export users.....

 

Neither should the tiger when n the past it's been said it was supposed to be an F5E3 model and representative of what us aggressor squadrons would have used. And as I have pointed out it's not. What you have is halfway f5N

 

Usaf/usn based f5e,s didnt have an/ale40 or an an/alr 87 rwr. This is a fact, a conclusion reached from information gathered from thier respective usaf and usn natops manuals.

.

Those are features that F5N( former swiss modified f5e's) had. But it's not quite an F5N either as it lacks thedual digital radio set, and INS system. ( a few other things)

 

So yea it's a problem when you mix match features to create a Franken plane

 

 

The solution would be to remodel them to an appropriate variant or split them into two variants as ed did when they remodeled the p51d, into two variants, and there was less difference between them then there is between f5e and f5n.

 

And so yes a remodeling or splitting of variants is justified for F5E.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if you run a museum and have to write up a placard describing the plane, then you are correct. But they only have old F-5's to go by. Old means changed. All of them.

 

Anyway, I don't think that they intended the bird to be a specific USN bird.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if you run a museum and have to write up a placard describing the plane, then you are correct. But they only have old F-5's to go by. Old means changed. All of them.

 

Anyway, I don't think that they intended the bird to be a specific USN bird.

 

 

No this is not the equivalent of writing up platecards in museums. Dcs fa18c lot 20 is a version specifically operated by the us navy/usmc. It does not have mix mash of features of different avionics from export users and passed off as USN/USMC specific. Dcs f16c block 50 cm will be a usaf/ANG version. It will not have a mix mash of features from foreign operators vipers no matter if they are similar in some cases. This is the standard that ED and some 3rd parties like heatblur have set. Bst has been dissolved and incorporated directly into ED. It's now thier responsibility to cover those products they inherited.

 

 

 

 

All f5s (minus some drastically foreign modernized versions) are old, and this DCS F5E is neither representative of a USAF nor US NAvy agressor, despite it was stated it would have been to represent a US based aggressor model. I had followed this since release was announced.

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3572864&postcount=2

 

 

 

All of these differences are referenced in usaf and respective usn manuals which include diagrams

 

This is further reflected by the maps and associated campaigns are mostly centered around an aggressor role within NTTR, not any of the export users.

 

Even so the features this f5 has it's basically a halfway to being a swiss f5e or a usn f5n.

 

As pointed out based on manuals usaf or usn didnt operate an f5e that had only an/apr 87 and an/ale 40 cm suite. The ones that did had digital radios and ins, because US navy bought swiss f5e,s which had those specific avionics. So if you model a vanilla f5n, you basically also have yourself a swiss f5e.

 

 

All things considered being an older module f5,s been due for a updated model anyways.

 

So solution is to split to 2 ( if not 3) versions.

 

USAF F5E

 

Just remove rwr and countermeasures system and you've got accurate US aggressor.

 

Swiss F-5E and/or USN F5N. ( They are former swiss F5E's.)

 

for this Take existing f5e3 module, For internal differences remodel the interior pedestal panel to incorporate digital radios, and the right hand panel to include INS . IF Manuals aren't enough of a reference, or IF US navy doesn't have any "vanilla" F5N's then the options visit A Swiss air force museum. ( after all ED even has a branch office in Switzerland) These very Swiss F5 with the very features i mention, can also be found in musuem as portions of the fleet are already retired and can also be applied to a USN F5N.

 

 

 

 

http://toniosky7.blogspot.com/2012/09/northrop-f-5e-walkaround-swiss-air-force.html


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

|Motherboard|: Asus TUF Gaming X570-PLUS,

|WaterCooler|: Corsair H115i Pro,

|CPU|: AMD Ryzen 7 3800X,

|RAM|: Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB 3200MHz DDR4,

|SSD|: Kingston A2000 500GB M.2 NVMe,

|SSD|: Kingston 2.5´ 480GB UV400 SATA III,

|SSHD|: Seagate Híbrido 2TB 7200RPM SATA III,

|GPU|: MSI Gaming 980Ti,

|Monitor|: LG UltraWide 34UM68,

|Joystick 1|: Thrustmaster Hotas Warthog,

|Joystick 2|: T.Flight Rudder Pedals,

|Head Motion|: TrackIr 5.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No this is not the equivalent of writing up platecards in museums. Dcs fa18c lot 20 is a version specifically operated by the us navy/usmc. It does not have mix mash of features of different avionics from export users and passed off as USN/USMC specific. Dcs f16c block 50 cm will be a usaf/ANG version. It will not have a mix mash of features from foreign operators vipers no matter if they are similar in some cases.

 

There's a reason for that, the F/A-18 and F-16 as well as the A-10C were commissioned FOR the Navy and Airforce. We just get an unclassified version to play with, so it happens that they are Specifically modeled to a specific version. The one the Customer asked for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a reason for that, the F/A-18 and F-16 as well as the A-10C were commissioned FOR the Navy and Airforce. We just get an unclassified version to play with, so it happens that they are Specifically modeled to a specific version. The one the Customer asked for.

 

No.....

 

Only the A10C is a by product of former ANG contract. In the A10's case there are no users outside of the US anywas.

 

F18C and F16C are just aircraft that ED decided to do and are for the consumer sim market only. IT makes sense to simulate country of origin first and foremost before doing specific export variants with thier own unique features. Besides a google search for Flight manuals and documentation will also tell you why its far more sensible to fo for those US operated aircraft.

 

the F5 all things considered should be otherwise a US agressor ( advertised as USAF specific) based version for similar reasons. Besides, the Map (Nevada NTTR) and campaigns are based around aggressor use, so the variant should match to whats in either USAF or USN documentation. It doesn't, so that's a bad move , luckily ED must have started to enforce higher standards, as IF you recall before being squired and incorporated directly into ED, based on features listed BST was in turn very specific what they were going to give with the " now on hold" F4E phantom. Fact checking on that description, it would have been an authentic USAF based F4E circa 1980s. And unlike the F5 aggressors that would have lacked any specific appropriate scenario.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.....

 

Only the A10C is a by product of former ANG contract. In the A10's case there are no users outside of the US anywas.

 

F18C and F16C are just aircraft that ED decided to do and are for the consumer sim market only. IT makes sense to simulate country of origin first and foremost before doing specific export variants with thier own unique features. Besides a google search for Flight manuals and documentation will also tell you why its far more sensible to fo for those US operated aircraft.

 

the F5 all things considered should be otherwise a US agressor ( advertised as USAF specific) based version for similar reasons. Besides, the Map (Nevada NTTR) and campaigns are based around aggressor use, so the variant should match to whats in either USAF or USN documentation. It doesn't, so that's a bad move , luckily ED must have started to enforce higher standards, as IF you recall before being squired and incorporated directly into ED, based on features listed BST was in turn very specific what they were going to give with the " now on hold" F4E phantom. Fact checking on that description, it would have been an authentic USAF based F4E circa 1980s. And unlike the F5 aggressors that would have lacked any specific appropriate scenario.

 

Please don't comment about contracts w/ incorrect information.

 

And they have nothing to do w/ the current topic.


Edited by SkateZilla

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2),

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9)

3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't comment about contracts w/ incorrect information.

 

And they have nothing to do w/ the current topic.

 

 

 

It's been stated on record, by ED. A10C is a consumer grade flight sim was a by product derived from a professional desktop trainer for the ANG, back when they were transitioning from a10a to a10c. The same cannot be said for f18c or f16c module

 

I dont see what you attempt to prove by trying to vaguely imply otherwise.

 

 

I didn't bring it up someone else did. Your barking up the wrong tree here.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F5E

 

Hi to all...i think the F5E is a great jet but the F5N should be great too but has a diferent plane not a update of the F5E.;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]













---- " In Peace.....Prepare to War "--------


Wishlist : F-4 Phantom / F-20 TigerShark / Su-34



Processor Core i7 4790, 32 Gb RAM, 2 Tb SSHD, GTX 750 2Gb, 1920X1080 Gaming Monitor, Senze Joypad, Windows 8.1 Pro 64Bit, VMware Workstation 12 for WindowsXP with Office 2007 and Linux OpenSUSE for Net Access.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

I think F-5N would be great as long we will still have the F-5E. I hope you will decide to make it.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

i7 5820K, 32GB DDR4, 3x250GB SSD RAID0, nVidia GTX 1080, Thrustmaster Warthog Throttle, Virpil WarBird base with Thrustmaster Warthog grip, MFG Crosswind rudder pedals - 2484.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would prefer getting an F-4E to an F-5N. But I would still buy an F-5N, especially if it coincided with a free update to the F-5E to current DCS World standards.

F-4 is in active development

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

i7 5820K, 32GB DDR4, 3x250GB SSD RAID0, nVidia GTX 1080, Thrustmaster Warthog Throttle, Virpil WarBird base with Thrustmaster Warthog grip, MFG Crosswind rudder pedals - 2484.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The version with four AIM-9s & the Mavericks would be a worthy side-grade ( the slightly later E models I think? ) - the Singapore AMRAAM carriers might be going a bit too far. I wouldn't pay full price for an upgraded E but I'd consider a small donation for a refresh, given it'd need a new cockpit. I'd be a bit more amenable to a multicrew F model with Pave Spike ( if only as an illustration of how bad tpods can be :p ).

 

 

Or perhaps they can have a look at the rest of it if they redo the cockpit ala Ka50/A10. Did any version ever carry the Shrike? quick browse suggests not ( not many operators used the missile ) but I've hardly done a comprehensive search...


Edited by Richard Dastardly

Most Wanted: the angry Naval Lynx | Seafire | Buccaneer | Hawker Hunter | Hawker Tempest/Sea Fury | Su-17/22 | rough strip rearming / construction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F-4 is in active development

 

What I am saying is that I would prefer the limited manpower that is available focus on releasing the F-4 rather than making a new variant of the F-5 or even giving the existing F-5E a facelift.

 

I am also aware that the F-4 was indefinitely delayed in favor of the F-16C, Mi-24, and AH-1.

 

There are lots of projects in progress and lots of projects being proposed. It would be nice if the projects in progress could be finished correctly and in a reasonable time before starting new ones. Though, it is easy to argue that existing releases should get their bug lists addressed instead of focusing on in-progress or new projects. The developers have to walk a fine line: if they don't release new stuff, they can't generate more money, but if they don't ever finish released projects up to promised standards then most people won't by their new stuff. It is a tough call to divide resources between existing, in-progress, and completely new projects. These aircraft are modeled to a level of detail that it is almost impossible to iron out every last bug and keep the models/textures up to current standards as the game engine steadily changes.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am saying is that I would prefer the limited manpower that is available focus on releasing the F-4 rather than making a new variant of the F-5 or even giving the existing F-5E a facelift.

 

I am also aware that the F-4 was indefinitely delayed in favor of the F-16C, Mi-24, and AH-1.

 

There are lots of projects in progress and lots of projects being proposed. It would be nice if the projects in progress could be finished correctly and in a reasonable time before starting new ones. Though, it is easy to argue that existing releases should get their bug lists addressed instead of focusing on in-progress or new projects. The developers have to walk a fine line: if they don't release new stuff, they can't generate more money, but if they don't ever finish released projects up to promised standards then most people won't by their new stuff. It is a tough call to divide resources between existing, in-progress, and completely new projects. These aircraft are modeled to a level of detail that it is almost impossible to iron out every last bug and keep the models/textures up to current standards as the game engine steadily changes.

 

If it was nothing more than just a "face lift" deemed necessary it wouldn't be as big of a deal for me. But considering it was never correct to begin with for an USAF aggressor model as was initially advertised , it honestly needs more than a texture facelift. That being said, the F5N ( You could cover the Swiss F5E at the same time as they are basically buybacks) is not fundamentally different from current F5E. just a few avionics differences ( most namely INS and digital radios), but the current agressor F5E to be correct would have to have the RWR and Countermeasures removed as neither the USAF nor navy used F5E's in that configuration. Those exact features and thier cockpit placement are specific to the F5N.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=247412

 

However limited resources there are as you yourself agree a module should be properly done before starting new projects. Therefore as much as i would like to see an F4E at some point after the F16, i still don't want the F5 module to be ignored forever, because its not just a matter of meager texture updates.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However limited resources there are as you yourself agree a module should be properly done before starting new projects. Therefore as much as i would like to see an F4E at some point after the F16, i still don't want the F5 module to be ignored forever, because its not just a matter of meager texture updates.

 

Honestly I've oft wondered how much more extra dev effort airframe variants would be for DCS. Obviously we all want more variety, but really, if you could say get 2 reasonably close planes for 110% or 120% of the dev effort of 1 plane? In some cases its obviously a ton of work (F model Mig21 vs Mig21bis as an example, or various blocks of F16's), but in this case it seems like it wouldn't.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New module in high demand = more money: F-14, F-16, F-18. Hours dumped into fixing old modules = loss of money. They basically get the modules just good enough to keep people happy enough to buy the next module.

 

Every module I have has mired down in a state where there are certain well known bugs and no evidence that those bugs are ever going to be fully addressed. But most modules, even in their current state, are still better than anything else I can fly in other sims. One module was so bad for so long that both the developer and the module are gone.

 

You can tell me that the F-5E has some bad flaws and that it doesn't match the variant it is supposed to replicate, but I still find the F-5E to be one the best modules available. I put more hours into the F-5E per month than I do any other module since it was released. It may not be a "perfect" experience, but for me it is one of the best experiences you can have flying it out of NTTR. In VR, the immersion is amazing. On a 49" 4K flat panel, the graphics are breathtaking.

 

The F-5E is not alone in not quite reflecting a real variant or the intended variant. The F-86F is in a similar pinch. Despite claims to the contrary, ED seems to favor gameplay over realism and the most historically appropriate variants to model. I would have made both the F-86F and MiG-15bis modules as accurately as possible variants that faced each other in the Korean War. I would have preferred to have appropriate Vietnam or Arab-Israeli variants of the F-4 and MiG-21. But what we have gotten is and are about to get are close enough to what I want that I will buy and fly them anyway. Alternatively, I could stop buying DCS modules while waiting for modules I will never get and watch ED go out of business if everyone else withheld their money until ED gave them exactly what they want, too.


Edited by streakeagle

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hours dumped into fixing old modules = loss of money.

 

Not completely true - new players still buy old modules, so if they don't look dated then they may well get more sales still. Maybe not the same RoI as a new module, though. And lack of customer satisfaction does cost some future sales.

Most Wanted: the angry Naval Lynx | Seafire | Buccaneer | Hawker Hunter | Hawker Tempest/Sea Fury | Su-17/22 | rough strip rearming / construction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New module in high demand = more money: F-14, F-16, F-18. Hours dumped into fixing old modules = loss of money. They basically get the modules just good enough to keep people happy enough to buy the next module.

 

Every module I have has mired down in a state where there are certain well known bugs and no evidence that those bugs are ever going to be fully addressed. But most modules, even in their current state, are still better than anything else I can fly in other sims. One module was so bad for so long that both the developer and the module are gone.

 

You can tell me that the F-5E has some bad flaws and that it doesn't match the variant it is supposed to replicate, but I still find the F-5E to be one the best modules available. I put more hours into the F-5E per month than I do any other module since it was released. It may not be a "perfect" experience, but for me it is one of the best experiences you can have flying it out of NTTR. In VR, the immersion is amazing. On a 49" 4K flat panel, the graphics are breathtaking.

 

The F-5E is not alone in not quite reflecting a real variant or the intended variant. The F-86F is in a similar pinch. Despite claims to the contrary, ED seems to favor gameplay over realism and the most historically appropriate variants to model. I would have made both the F-86F and MiG-15bis modules as accurately as possible variants that faced each other in the Korean War. I would have preferred to have appropriate Vietnam or Arab-Israeli variants of the F-4 and MiG-21. But what we have gotten is and are about to get are close enough to what I want that I will buy and fly them anyway. Alternatively, I could stop buying DCS modules while waiting for modules I will never get and watch ED go out of business if everyone else withheld their money until ED gave them exactly what they want, too.

 

Actually it was Belsimtek that did F86F and F5E, before being in more recent times directly incorporated into ED.

 

Compared to former BST , ED has in fact been leaning more towards authenticity and realism over pure gameplay which is really obvious with the F/A18C, and F16C they are very specific to the variant and its exact avionics and weapons features for a very specif time frame for those aircraft.

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the only way you could see a wide series of variants for each module is with an open code sim like combatace (?) where basically half the gamers themselves mod the bejezus out of it and add every variant for existing models themselves with some home coding, roughly 0.05% of it amounting to one or two contributors doing anything remotely accurate but so many people modding you do wind up with liveries and pop-science renditions of every variant of every plane in the universe available for download.

I mean that's what we did with IL2 Sturmovik, I did the RAF/RAAF Kittyhawks and Ta152C0R11/C3 mods myself, which took about a year research apiece and was a rewarding experience since I would up having personal conversations with mechanics on an FW190A warbird restoration project and the respected FW warbird technical author Dietmar Herman, so learned a tremendous amount of little known information that actually challenges pop science renditions of WW2 birds, such as the Ta152H altitude restriction of 10,500 metres and not the published 14,500 metres. Anyway point being with all the other contributors that eventually coalesced to the SAS IL mod website (still around btw), every FW190 variant, every BF109 variant, every P51 variant, every Yak variant, every early MiG, every Spit variant, every Typhoon/Tempest, every Beaufort/Beaufighter, every P40, every everything wound up downloadable.

And that's not even open code, it's cracked. Took many years for that many modders to pop up. Open code like some of the jet sims (combatace?) right off the bat they have a huge mod community.

 

But that's not DCS, not by a long shot. What I'm saying is if you want that, you have to go to an open code sim or a cracked sim mod site. Problem there is realism, because half the modders are brought up on pop culture not science, because whole populations of human beings don't really practise scientific method as a personal philosophy and you kind of need to if you want to get past all the propaganda, limited assumptions and straight up disinformation about militaria. Half the facts out there have people's personalities mixed into the renditions, I do it myself being facetious when I'm telling something that is true at the core, but has some flavour about how I'm conversating so I don't bore myself to death and want to set people on fire for not being a hot swimwear model who wants to bang me. But other times some people are straight up wrong with their facts, published fact books about the BF109 says things like the carburettor DB600 was in the BF109D when it was just a Jumo engine C modified for frontline service in reality, or historians look at the Focke Wulf company documentation predicting Ta152H performance as level flight at 14,500 metres when historically the only pilot who ever got it past 11,000 metres without passing out was Kurt Tank himself and during the service trials it cruised at 7,000-8,000 metres in practise, so wasn't exactly the space shuttle it kind of looked like at the time. The C with the Daimler motor was better and according to Dietmar Herman documentation suggests forthcoming production (H2?) was going to switch to the Daimler motor. Now get a modder who loves the Ta152H from the library books and you'll have a plane in the sim that runs around at 14,000 metres no problem but it never actually existed irl like that, so begin the flame wars at the sim forum for that mod.

 

So I totally get the DCS way of doing things. And like it.


Edited by vanir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I personally think that another version could be done but that it would have to be majorly different and have substancial backing to produce and make money on.

 

Personally i believe it should be either a two seater version or one that can either air to air refuel and/or carry additional weapons such as the python or hellfire, that being said i do agree with the person who suggested doing the morrocan f5s, they're a substancial upgrade and provide more changes then say adding ils would be.

 

that being said, it would also need to be a version with sufficent information on to make, this could mean that it drastically reduces the choices of versions to get as information could be limited.

 

This would most likely narrow down the choices to the ones used by the U.S.A predomoninantly be it two seater or not.

 

Furthermore there would likely have to be a way for the developer to make other means of money from it, being contract or otherwise which also further narrows down the choices and could make it harder to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

If anything i would prefer some older, actually combat, version like F-5A from mid 1960s when this bird was a danger for most enemies. Or an early 1970s F-5E variant with original AN/APQ-153 pulse radar and without RWR which came into service parallel with MiG-21bis.

 

F-5N is a trainer in era of 4th and 5th gen fighters totally outclassed in every respect. Flying agressor is also nice but not as inspiring as fight real war in an able fighter against comparable opposition.

There were about 630-650 F-5A and only a handful (36 pieces?) F-5N.

But the best option would be just an overhaul of current E variant.


Edited by bies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's not a matter of realism, gameplay or time period. ED chooses to module aircrafts they have data for. Maybe some variants are not exactly identical to the real ones, but It depends on data available to model. F-18 and f-16 are very close in time only because model the both together Is time saving and gives the advantage to have two modules instead of one. I do not think we need a different f-5 variant. We need bugs to be addressed and 3d model and textures to be kept updated with time, in order to keep the model quality aligned with the newest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Not only do I wish they would do the N-model but also give us some more trainer aircraft, the T-38C would be ideal, even if they only made it single cockpit. Most of the work would already be done, at the very least give us a cockpit upgrade option that can be locked out by mission editors or something, where we could get the T-38C avionics for training. I wonder if it would be possible to mod the cockpit in a way to get something close?

System: Intel 14700k on MSi z690 DDR4 pro, Arctic Liquid Frozer II 360mm AIO, 64gb ddr4-3600mhz CL16, Gigabyte 4090
Winwing Orion2 F-15EX/F-16EX combo, VKB T-Rudder Mk.IV, TM Warthog (Shelved)
2x 256gb Vertex 4 SSD's, 2x 1tb Sabrent NVMe PCIe 4.0 SSD's, 1x 4.0tb Silicon Power NVMe, 1x 4tb Seagate HDD
VR: Quest 3 (Current), HP Reverb G1 (Shelved)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...