Please convince me.. - Page 3 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-02-2019, 10:24 PM   #21
statrekmike
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Providence RI
Posts: 505
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xvii-Dietrich View Post
I see the F5 as the next step up from an L-39ZA or C101CC. It has simple radar, counter measures and is faster and more agile than those other two. It would be a natural progression in training. However, many people approach DCS the opposite way, starting with the most sophisticated fighters and working backwards down the training, so to speak.


One other point, is that, if you like campaigns, there are two available for sale for the F5, which are the Air Combat Manoeuvres and Basic Flight Manoeuvres. (Note that both of those need the NTTR map too).

This is a good point. From a real world standpoint, combat pilots don't really have a choice but to start with trainers like the L-39 or the T-38 in order to transition into the cockpits of more advanced front line combat aircraft like F-16's or MiG's. In DCS, it kinda goes the opposite way. Since there are no consequences for failure beyond crashing a virtual plane, it makes more sense to encourage players to get the aircraft they really love even if it is a complex combat focused aircraft.

With that in mind, I kinda feel like the F-5, L-39, and other trainers with some combat capability end up being more interesting as "enthusiast purchases" for those that REALLY love those specific aircraft regardless of what kind of role they can or cannot fill in more seriously structured missions. They end up being those classic cars that someone buys for the passion of that specific car and nothing else.
statrekmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2019, 11:24 AM   #22
msalama
Veteran
 
msalama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,084
Default

Quote:
seriously structured missions
Depends on what you mean by "seriously structured". The L-39ZA, for example, is an excellent light CAS/COIN platform and has been used as such in numerous RL conflicts. And I don't think missions and/or servers concentrating on those kind of scenarios are less "seriously structured" than any 'big war' stuff I've seen so far.
__________________
Huey probs & gripes? Do read the following please: https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.p...1&d=1555258147
msalama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2019, 07:33 PM   #23
statrekmike
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Providence RI
Posts: 505
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msalama View Post
Depends on what you mean by "seriously structured". The L-39ZA, for example, is an excellent light CAS/COIN platform and has been used as such in numerous RL conflicts. And I don't think missions and/or servers concentrating on those kind of scenarios are less "seriously structured" than any 'big war' stuff I've seen so far.
This is a tricky topic. I suppose it would be useful to quickly clarify that when I talk about "seriously structured" missions, I am speaking not so much about the size of the scenario but more about how much emphasis is put on constructing a semi-realistic/plausible scenario. In larger (popular) public servers, the scenarios tend to be constructed in fairly inclusive manner in regards to aircraft types, player skill levels, and even drop-in, drop-out capability. To put it another way, those who wish to use the L-39ZA will find scenarios and targets that allow it to be successful.

This brings me to the "seriously structured" thing. When I say that, I mean making missions with a specific eye towards creating a scenario that accurately reflects (as much as DCS can possibly allow) a specific aircraft's real-world usage. This includes putting it in its proper context. As such, if I were to make a serious L-39ZA mission, I would research how it was used in places like Syria, Abkhazia, or other places where it was used specifically in a combat (and not combat training) role. Unfortunately, this would mean creating missions where one's survival rate is not so great as even simple ground fire becomes a massive issue (as in real life).

This ties into the larger point I am trying to make with even the F-5E we have in DCS. It is easy to overstate its effectiveness when looking at how well it does in public servers (where creating a inclusive environment to attract players with a variety of skill levels is key and thus tasking and targets tend to be less defended, more static, and easier to attack). When you start thinking about more realistic, more demanding missions, it becomes a bit more complicated and some aircraft (including the L-39ZA and the F-5E) start to seriously show their limits and as I said before. Those limits are interesting to explore but should not be dismissed out of hand.

If you are handy with the editor, I would suggest creating some COIN/CAS scenarios for the L-39ZA that somewhat accurately reflect what it has done in real life. I think you will find that even against very basic enemy forces (troops, light armored vehicles, MANPAD's, and even simple AA gun emplacements), the L-39ZA will struggle to keep up. The F-5E does a bit better but even when designing missions for it, you will find that its DACT focused configuration will limit just how far you can push it in terms of mission design.
statrekmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2019, 07:56 AM   #24
NakedSquirrel
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 246
Default

Depends on why you like to fly aircraft and what you want to do with them, or how complicated you want your aircraft to be.

If you want something that is fairly easy to learn/fly with cold war weapons systems this is a great aircraft, and a decent dogfighter. It's also fun as an "Aggressor" aircraft for training missions, since it filled that role IRL. It's pretty simple, however, so you're limited to IR missiles, guns, dumb bombs and rockets.

Overall I enjoy the plane. It doesn't take a whole lot of poking around the cockpit before I remember how to make her fully operational.

The only big issue I have with it is in the modern setting (besides weapons selection) is its lack of IFF for the radar. You have to VID everything, you only have 2 missiles, and you're slightly underpowered in the thrust department (giggity).

If you want something a little more complicated from the same era, the MiG-21 is a good one, or if you really want to sit down and study, I'd go with the Viggen, or any of the more modern aircraft.
__________________
Modules: A10C, AV8, M2kC, Viggen, MiG-21, MiG-19, MiG-15, F86F, F5E, F14A/B, F16C, F18C, P51, Spitfire IX, Bf109K, Fw190-D, UH-1, Ka-50, SA342 Gazelle, Mi8, Christian Eagle II, CA, FC3
NakedSquirrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2019, 04:15 PM   #25
msalama
Veteran
 
msalama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,084
Default

Quote:
you will find that
I, of course, know this. The thing is, if you want to actually enjoy those missions, you'll either have to A) limit yourself to hostile APCs, infantry & non-radar AAA only or B) use some common sense by preventing those Albies / F-5s / what have you from striking their target before the big boys have taken out the stuff they can't handle.

Real life however? As it comes to Syria, I've heard stories of SAF pilots actually liking their Albies, because they're quite manouverable and the loiter time is good. But strangely enough no-one mentions MANPADs - well either because the insurgents don't have them, or, I don't know, maybe because the SAF has retrofitted their entire fleet with flare throwers or something. But in either case, all publicly available documents just state that "a number of AC have been shot down" without disclosing any loss rates that I've seen at least.

Still, those guys must base their fondness for the bird on something tangible. Just wonder what that is?

PS. I realize I'm drifting kind of off topic here. My apologies
__________________
Huey probs & gripes? Do read the following please: https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.p...1&d=1555258147
msalama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2019, 12:56 AM   #26
statrekmike
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Providence RI
Posts: 505
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msalama View Post
I, of course, know this. The thing is, if you want to actually enjoy those missions, you'll either have to A) limit yourself to hostile APCs, infantry & non-radar AAA only or B) use some common sense by preventing those Albies / F-5s / what have you from striking their target before the big boys have taken out the stuff they can't handle.

Real life however? As it comes to Syria, I've heard stories of SAF pilots actually liking their Albies, because they're quite manouverable and the loiter time is good. But strangely enough no-one mentions MANPADs - well either because the insurgents don't have them, or, I don't know, maybe because the SAF has retrofitted their entire fleet with flare throwers or something. But in either case, all publicly available documents just state that "a number of AC have been shot down" without disclosing any loss rates that I've seen at least.

Still, those guys must base their fondness for the bird on something tangible. Just wonder what that is?

PS. I realize I'm drifting kind of off topic here. My apologies

This is one of those things that might be really controversial to say but after years of reading various books and ESPECIALLY memoirs about various combat aircraft and pilots, I have found that usually pilots will develop a fondness (bias) towards a given aircraft and as such, are not quite as likely (on average) to say negative things. Likewise when it comes to specific roles/mission types where the pilots who write memoirs (or the writers who assemble the words of pilots) tend to show a clear bias towards whatever role they did the most. A good example of this is Dan Hampton's 'Viper Pilot' where he tends to downplay the roles of other aircraft/pilots in favor of his own.

To bring this back to the original topic a bit. The F-5 is actually a great example of this. Among the pilots who flew F-5's or flew against F-5's in the very controlled environment of DACT, the F-5 tends to fit well in its element and makes a good showing of itself since it can actually work inside its strengths. The pilots who flew/flew against them tend to (on average but not absolutely always) talk up the plane quite a bit without always adding the full context that would let us (the readers or audience) know that they are probably not talking about actual front-line combat. As I said, there are exceptions, Keith "Okie" Nance is quite open about how vulnerable and how limited the F-5 would be (especially the versions he dealt with) in real combat against dedicated combat aircraft (ones that are not mostly used for training nowadays).

One of the big difficulties when having this kind of discussion in the DCS context really comes down to the MASSIVE gulf between the more commonly seen missions (via youtube, the uploads section of the site, and on public servers) and the ones that tend to be focused more on realistic operations/usage. In the former, just about every aircraft that can carry weapons will probably have some time to shine. In the latter, certain aircraft are going to have a hard time unless the mission is built entirely around them and even then, (as is the case with something like the L-39) there may not be a good way to complete the mission without a very, very real risk that you will get filled full of machine gun rounds (fired by a armored vehicle or something) or MANPAD missiles. Some aircraft like the F-5 might fare a bit better because of their speed/climb but others (like the L-39) will not be quite fast enough to so easily escape ground fire during those horrifyingly vulnerable moments that you need to line up a shot properly and with as little risk as is possible.
statrekmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2019, 04:53 AM   #27
msalama
Veteran
 
msalama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,084
Default

Yes, there may be biases, and yes, the L-39 is potentially vulnerable because it's slow and unarmored.

Still, Wikipedia claims that "according to Reuters, by 2014 the L-39 had allegedly become one of the favoured platforms of the Syrian Air Force for performing ground attack missions due to its slower speed and higher agility over other aircraft in its inventory." So do those guys have a deathwish or something? Hardly. The circumstances there must make the Albie survivable enough, or they would've all been shot down by 2014 and anecdotes like the above wouldn't exist. So I don't know, maybe the SAF generals, hmmm, structure their missions seriously and are thus able to put their L-39 inventory to good use?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_L-39_Albatros#Syria
__________________
Huey probs & gripes? Do read the following please: https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.p...1&d=1555258147
msalama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2019, 01:02 PM   #28
DmitriKozlowsky
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Northbrook, Ill USA. Haifa, Israel
Posts: 579
Default

If you are new to DCS. or have stayed with FC3 level modules and want to uprate and into high fidelity modules. Get F-5E first, get decent with it. Then get your hi-fi mod of choice. If you have been away for a while, and getting back into groove. Fly F-5E first. Then revert to your hi-fi module of choice. Regardless of what your choices are, F-5E should be one of the modules you have. It is a fantastic hi-fi flight trainer. If you can fly and fight, and survive in F-5E, you can do it in any other module.
I got it when it was on sale for $24 and it was money well spent. I use it with AV-8B and Mirage. #1 Skill everyone must master is close formation precision flying. That means flying as a wingman to AI lead. If youy can't fly in formation, you will never master in-flight refueling. As in-flight refueling is all about precise, consistent close formation flying with the tanker. F-5E, IMHO is best platform for that training in DCS. My opinion only,as F-5E is not specifically a trainer like L-39 and C-101.
DmitriKozlowsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2019, 04:55 PM   #29
probad
Senior Member
 
probad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,155
Default

if you cant figure out how to have fun with it on your own you're always gonna get bored, that's the bottom line
__________________
hahaha hey look at me i surely know more about aviation and coding than actual industry professionals hired for their competency because i have read jalopnik and wikipedia i bet theyve never even heard of google LOL
probad is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
buying, f-5, f-5e, f-5e-ii

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:03 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.