Update of the F-5E to the F-5N level? - Page 10 - ED Forums
 


Notices

View Poll Results: Are you interested in a payware update of the 80´s F-5E to the present F-5N?
Yes 197 59.88%
No 88 26.75%
It would depend of the sale price. 44 13.37%
Voters: 329. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-20-2019, 01:21 AM   #91
streakeagle
Member
 
streakeagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 922
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cotoi View Post
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.
__________________
streakeagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2019, 08:37 PM   #92
Kev2go
Senior Member
 
Kev2go's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,708
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by streakeagle View Post
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.
__________________





Build:


Spoiler:


Windows 10 64 bit,

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 512 gb SSD


Last edited by Kev2go; 09-20-2019 at 08:48 PM.
Kev2go is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2019, 09:46 PM   #93
Harlikwin
Veteran
 
Harlikwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Living rent free in your mind
Posts: 4,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kev2go View Post
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, TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)
Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).
Harlikwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2019, 12:15 AM   #94
streakeagle
Member
 
streakeagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 922
Default

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.
__________________

Last edited by streakeagle; 09-21-2019 at 12:23 AM.
streakeagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2019, 12:22 AM   #95
Richard Dastardly
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Europe
Posts: 92
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by streakeagle View Post
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 | Buccaneer | Hawker Hunter | Hawker Tempest/Sea Fury | Su-17/22 | rough strip rearming / construction
Richard Dastardly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2019, 02:33 PM   #96
Kev2go
Senior Member
 
Kev2go's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,708
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by streakeagle View Post
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:


Spoiler:


Windows 10 64 bit,

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 512 gb SSD

Kev2go is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2019, 11:46 PM   #97
vanir
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 235
Default

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.

Last edited by vanir; 09-21-2019 at 11:52 PM.
vanir is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 05:26 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.