DCS F5E model errors ( mix mash of avionics from various versions) - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-11-2019, 05:31 PM   #1
Kev2go
Senior Member
 
Kev2go's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,578
Default DCS F5E model errors ( mix mash of avionics from various versions)

The cockpit avionics are incorrect for either USAF or USN based F5E aggressor model.



According to both USAF series F5E/F manuals, and US navy's Natops F5E/F/N manual, the US service F5E's never had AN/ALE40 counter measures system, nor AN/ALR87 Radar warning receiver.

Those avionics ( and their exact placement) would be on a Swiss F5E.


The AN/ALE40 and AN/ALR87 RWR are only referenced within the Natops manual for the USN F5N model , but thats because they are literally former swiss modified F5E's, that they bought in the 2000's to augment the F5 aggressor fleet.

However just because DCS F5E has AN/ALE40 CM and ANN/ALR87 RWR is still not accurate as a Swiss F5E or US navy F5N as most notably it lacks Digital Radios on the front center panel. and INS based navigation suite. ( Right panel) There are also some other minor missing things like some changes made to the Fight stick.


Since BST has been dissolved and incorporated into Eagle Dynamics, I would hope that this DCS F5E module is eventually remodeled by ED. Ideally I think it would be to split into two versions when( and if) remodeling , USAF aggressor model , and a Swiss F5E to represent authentic F5E tiger model(s)


I can't post direct manual excerpts in public forum due to rule 1.16, but here is some public information that can be provided that note the difference in Swiss F5E's and USN F5, in avionics is non existent. It can be in turn compared to a usaf agressor f5e.

http://toniosky7.blogspot.com/2012/0...air-force.html


https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_d...&tid=1050&ct=1


__________________





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; 08-14-2019 at 01:15 PM.
Kev2go is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2019, 12:14 AM   #2
Kev2go
Senior Member
 
Kev2go's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,578
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cofcorpse View Post
Kev2go, good researches, this and about F-5!
Removing missile is a bad choice, and the other choice is very long. Also, this makes mavericks on F-5 nearly impossible, I assume.
I think that the choice of certain features was a kind of a compromise between opportunity and desire.
Il reply in this thread instead of the F86F bug report


F5E modded with Mavericks wouldn't be realistic either fora USAF agroessor irregardles if they also had the F5E3 block.. That too would ideally require 2 different F5E versions. These are features only on some users like the Saudi or Taiwanese F5E versions. This too requires some remodeling as would the proposed Swiss F5E or USN F5N due to having a new screen that flips between Maverick TV jmode, and Radar display.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=171297

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...64&postcount=2

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...21&postcount=2


I know This was asked about playerbase years ago but was admitted the development team couldn't find the the documentation for how they work, and others associated with ED said it ultimately wouldn't be added because it was not a feature part of Aggressor version anyways. ( implying it was supposed to be US operated one), but as established it is not quite a SUAF aggressor model and halfway to being a Swiss F5E or USN aggressor F5N . However documentation is not lacking for remodeling USAF based F5E3, and to a SWiss F5E or USN F5N.
__________________





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; 08-14-2019 at 12:18 AM.
Kev2go is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2019, 01:24 AM   #3
Paganus
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: KPDK
Posts: 775
Default

The way we've been buying them back, it's a frankenstein fleet already.

for 2020...

"The service also wants to purchase 22 F-5 Tiger IIs, recently retired from the Swiss Air Force, to act as aggressor aircraft for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps fighter pilots to train against."

https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...-budget-plane/
Paganus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2019, 09:49 AM   #4
Kev2go
Senior Member
 
Kev2go's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,578
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paganus View Post
The way we've been buying them back, it's a frankenstein fleet already.

for 2020...

"The service also wants to purchase 22 F-5 Tiger IIs, recently retired from the Swiss Air Force, to act as aggressor aircraft for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps fighter pilots to train against."

https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...-budget-plane/

I wouldnt even call that Frankenstein fleet. That would be like saying not all fa18c,s not up to lot20 prodution standard with deviance are Frankenstein. In genral The manuals note differences between production models and what post production upgrades are applied to which batches. That was not really what's wrong here, but incorrect features for a specific version and service..... because such features are only within new ones acquired., not partially spread around to other planes.


BOTH respective usaf and usn f5 manuals note which aircraft has what features. F5e ( either in usaf or usn) dont have an/ale40 cm or an/ale87 rwr. That is a fact.

The current " buy back "f5,s are 35 former swiss f5e's acquired in 2000s and put into service in 2006, and the US navy gave them a new designation, the f5n to distinguish them from basic f5e,s in agressor use. Thier differences are notable for that specific version in documentation. As already noted in OP. The Usaf has already retired their f5 in the 90s.

The usaf nor USN never bought back any maverick capable f5e,s.

That article you linked isfrom 2019 and it again mentions buying more swiss f5s. If they would be buying different f5,s it is obviously you cant expect to use that as an argument simulate an agressor that's not yet even been aquired given lack of documentation. If it's the from the swiss. It's just additional ones from Switzerland than thier going to be like the ones aquired from earlier.

That's why you represent a specific time frame. It too is pretty obvious hornets and vipers have more capabilties today in 2019 than they did a decade ago. But ed arent simulating the most modern versions either. And specific lots and production blocks to keep the features standard among the version being simulated.

Just like other aircraft there are charts noting differences and a ecp list, noting new changes or addons implemented.

ED will make the choice as to what remodel if this is acknowledged, but I think splitting into multiple versions as ed did with the p51d, would be the most ideal.
__________________





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; 08-14-2019 at 01:17 PM.
Kev2go is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2019, 01:16 PM   #5
SkateZilla
Moderator/ED Testers Team
 
SkateZilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 18,488
Default

The Franken-fleet is F-5E's / F-5N's as the F-5E's Purchased and Re-designated F-5Ns, some have new F-5F Wings, Some don't.

And the USMC has a Franken-Fleet of Hornets at A+, C, D, C+ all with different Systems.
__________________
Windows 10 Pro, HAF922, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill,
2x R7970 Lightnings Crossfired @ 1.1/6.0GHz, Creative XFi Plat. Fatal1ty Champion,
3x ASUS VS248HP + Hanns·G HZ201HPB + Acer AL2002 (5760x1080+1600x900+1680x1050)
TM Warthog HOTAS, TM MFDs, CH Fighterstick, Pro Throttle, CH Pro Pedals, TrackIR4 Pro
SkateZilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2019, 01:22 PM   #6
Kev2go
Senior Member
 
Kev2go's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,578
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkateZilla View Post
The Franken-fleet is F-5E's / F-5N's as the F-5E's Purchased and Re-designated F-5Ns, some have new F-5F Wings, Some don't.

And the USMC has a Franken-Fleet of Hornets at A+, C, D, C+ all with different Systems.
It's one thing to have mixed fleets of various versions, that's a given. And it's another to represent a an aircraft from the specific nation and branch where those differences dont apply to the given type of aircraft. In other words there is no documented existence of f5e in usaf or usn service utilizing this particular configuration as in the dcs f5e. . Therefore it's not an authentic as an agressor model.

Hence why to have an accurate remodeling of documented f5 versions you would need to split into at least. two versions


Dcs f18c lot 20 hornet doesnt have a mish mash of acd or export features. These are standardized features. The dcs f16c block 50 is also very specific to the version and timeframe.

Both the usaf series f5e/f and usn natops f5efn Manuals documentation note the differences between production batches and have a list of post production upgrades and which apply to repsective production models.I've read them


In the usaf and usn, none of those f5e3s ( or any f5e block) include an/ale40 ,an/ale 87 rwr. Or any rwr or cm suite for that matter.Those are specific to the us navy f5n which have those features because they are former swiss modified f5e,s.

However f5ns as noted have other avionics like digital radios and ins navigation. So dcs f5e is not representative of any agressor model they operate, and aught to be remodeled to 2 versions , basic f5e3, ala usaf, and the swiss f5e/ usn f5n.


It is disingenuous for you to try to point otherwise skate. I know you know better
__________________





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; 08-14-2019 at 04:13 PM.
Kev2go is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2019, 04:13 PM   #7
SkateZilla
Moderator/ED Testers Team
 
SkateZilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 18,488
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kev2go View Post
It's one thing to have mixed fleets of various versions. And it's another to represent a an aircraft from the specific nation and branch where those differences dont apply to the given type of aircraft.


Dcs f18c lot 20 hornet doesnt have a mish mash of acd or export features. These are standardized features.

Both the usaf series f5e/f and usn natops f5efn Manuals documentation note the differences between production batches and have a list of post production upgrades and which apply to repsective production models.I've read them


In the usaf and usn, none of those f5e3s ( or any f5e,s) include an/ale40 ,an/ale 87 rwr. Or any rwr or cm suite. Those are specific to the us navy f5n which have those features because they are former swiss modified f5e,s.

However f5ns as noted have other avionics like digital radios and ins navigation. So dcs f5e is not representative of any agressor model they operate, and aught to be remodeled to 2 versions , basic f5e3, ala usaf, and the swiss f5e/ usn f5n.


It is disingenuous for you to try to point otherwise skate. I know you know better
Ummm, you pretty much just confirmed what I was saying about the F-5E's/F-5Ns

There arent any plans that I know of to port the F-5E to F-5N for Aggressor AI or Human Controlled Aircraft in Redflag Campaigns or Missions.

If that's what your imposing.
__________________
Windows 10 Pro, HAF922, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill,
2x R7970 Lightnings Crossfired @ 1.1/6.0GHz, Creative XFi Plat. Fatal1ty Champion,
3x ASUS VS248HP + Hanns·G HZ201HPB + Acer AL2002 (5760x1080+1600x900+1680x1050)
TM Warthog HOTAS, TM MFDs, CH Fighterstick, Pro Throttle, CH Pro Pedals, TrackIR4 Pro
SkateZilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2019, 05:59 PM   #8
Kev2go
Senior Member
 
Kev2go's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,578
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkateZilla View Post
Ummm, you pretty much just confirmed what I was saying about the F-5E's/F-5Ns

There arent any plans that I know of to port the F-5E to F-5N for Aggressor AI or Human Controlled Aircraft in Redflag Campaigns or Missions.

If that's what your imposing.

No plans.... well you dont say?. i get it , just now were alll "learning" what's wrong via this bug report.

Confirmed what you said? Perhaps I misunderstood your intentions but I thought you attempted to imply that current f5 is one of the existing authentic configurations, purely because many versions exist , without directly saying so. It's not. There is no documented evidence of a usaf or usn f5e being operated in the way its modeled in dcs. If that's the case, that was quite an irresponsible standard to take, to make up a configuration that's suits the team. IN turn its very inconsistent to apply higher standards to other modules. Granted bst was not dissolved and directly incorporated until very recently, so perhaps that's why.


I am just suggesting that To fix this error, a realistic remodel to a usaf aggressor is needed, which means removing an/ale40 and an/alr 87.

The only way can truly authentically keep the an/ale40 and an/alr 87 on a US operated F5E is if it's an f5N, which includes upgrading some features, which I mentioned earlier. IF thats not an option for whatever reason, then we will be left with a less capable F5. IF thats what ED would choose to do because its less effort fine.

If bst chose to actually model a manual documented f5e3 for an us operated aggressor model the first time around instead of bending realism, there wouldn't be a need for such a thread.


So how do you satisfy both needs? Split into multiple versions. That way no one complains they are left with only a downgraded version. and a version that retains the features that the module was originally with. At the same time this means that that ed upholds the fidelity standards that they have on other modules.
__________________





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; 08-15-2019 at 02:16 AM.
Kev2go is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2019, 01:37 AM   #9
SkateZilla
Moderator/ED Testers Team
 
SkateZilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 18,488
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kev2go View Post
No plans.... well you dont say. Your "learning" just now what's wrong via this bug report.

Confimred what you said? Perhaps I misunderstood your intentions but I thought you attempted to imply that current f5 is one of the existing authentic configurations, purely because many versions exist , without directly saying so. It's not. There is no documented evidence of a usaf or usn f5e being operated in the way its modelled in dcs. If that's the case, that was quite an irresponsible standard to take, to make up a configuration that's suits you, and very inconsistent to in turn apply higher standards to other modules. Granted bst was not dissolved and directly incorporateded until very recently, so perhaps that's why.


I am just suggesting that To fix this error, a realistic remodel to a usaf agressor means removing an/ale40 and an/alr 87.

The only way can truly authentically keep thean/ale40 and an/alr 87 on a us operated f5e is if it's an f5n. Which includes upgrading some features, which I mentioned.

If bst chose toactually model a documented f5e3 for an us operated agressor model the first time around instead of bending realism, there wouldn't be a need for such a thread.


So how do you satisfy both needs? Split into 2 versions. That way no one complains they are left with only a downgraded version. and ultimately that ed upholds the fidelity standards that they have on other modules.
I wouldnt mind a Split to:
F-5A
F-5E-3
F-5N
__________________
Windows 10 Pro, HAF922, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill,
2x R7970 Lightnings Crossfired @ 1.1/6.0GHz, Creative XFi Plat. Fatal1ty Champion,
3x ASUS VS248HP + Hanns·G HZ201HPB + Acer AL2002 (5760x1080+1600x900+1680x1050)
TM Warthog HOTAS, TM MFDs, CH Fighterstick, Pro Throttle, CH Pro Pedals, TrackIR4 Pro
SkateZilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2019, 07:13 AM   #10
Schmidtfire
Senior Member
 
Schmidtfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,167
Default

F-5A would be neat! Love those wingtanks...
Schmidtfire 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 11:10 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.