The F-5 needs an upgrade IMO

[Konovalov]

such many replies in two days. wow.

 

Evidence of a very popular module which has got a lot of people excited and some perhaps over excited.

 

Just look how many F-5E videos are up on You Tube in just a week.

 

I for one love this module. But people need to remember that it is in early release and as such there are small bugs that need ironing out. The fundamentals of this aircraft appear true to what I have read and watched. I am very happy with this variant. Sure we could wish for the F-20 Tigershark or a variant that can fire the Maverick. In the end I feel that this variant that we have fits nicely into the DCS World.

 

I have to fight my five year old son to get flying time with it and even my wife said, "that looks like a nice plane" and said that the music sounds like out of Top Gun.

[Capn kamikaze]

It's nothing like that. I honestly want the F-20 in DCS more than probably any other aircraft. I'm not a troll-like, snide or disingenuous kind of guy. This is something I'd really like to see.

 

I just think the F-5, as is, would be just fine if the Sidewinders tracked, the AA-1 gunsight worked, and we possibly got Mavericks (which I think are part of the real life F-5E-3 package.)

 

Don't read into it too much. :)

 

Fair enough, I took what you said the wrong way, apologies, rep inbound.

[NeilWillis]

So, after great debate, it can be concluded that the F-5E module as released by Belsimtek faithfully and completely represents the reality for non-export models.

 

So, no need for any updates, or additions. It is perfect as it is, and once the recognised bugs have been resolved, we will have an excellent simulation.

[Hook47]

So, after great debate, it can be concluded that the F-5E module as released by Belsimtek faithfully and completely represents the reality for non-export models.

 

So, no need for any updates, or additions. It is perfect as it is, and once the recognised bugs have been resolved, we will have an excellent simulation.

 

Speak for yourself concerning additions! :) New variants, Ploychop Simulations style, would be awesome! I really would like to see 3rd parties expand variants even as paid add on content

[Justificus]

New variants, Ploychop Simulations style, would be awesome! I really would like to see 3rd parties expand variants even as paid add on content

 

Totally agree. Really loved what Polychop did with the Gazelle and would love to see others do likewise, even if it means paying out some more dough!:thumbup:

[speedbirdcathay250]

I agree with the aspect of how hardcore this Tiger is. As long as you stay alive, having to land back at base or divert to your nearest alternate will keep you well trained, not to mention your landings. But especially making almost every missile and gun ammo count

I am not yet a proud owner of the Tiger yet, watching the content on youtube, quite amazed to see everybodies take on the legendary fighter.

I can't wait to get my hands on it :)

[KansasCS]

The F5 has been out for less than two weeks, is still in alpha, and already a thread is ensuing about it's lack of missiles etc.

Noted, a lot of people disagree with the OP and take the F5 how it is, but still.

I respect devs that deal with this sort of unconstructive feedback on a daily basis.

We get a module every 6 months or so and still people find stuff to frown about, or see it perfectly possible to model the latest and greatest variant of said module.

[Fri13]

The F5 has been out for less than two weeks, is still in alpha, and already a thread is ensuing about it's lack of missiles etc.

 

What to expect?

 

A new aircraft comes along, and people don't want to fly it as it was in reality. Sure if someone points the error and can guide developers to invest to it, then it should be done.

 

But I do agree that developers could make a alternative variants if there were such, like if Iran had special made F-5E or so, then give that variant to that country (if it is in DCS).

That is same thing with example KA-50, where some prototypes had the RWR and AAM, so if there is time, make a variant. After al the new variant is not as much work as whole new module if most of the avionics and systems doesn't change (and after all if engines, fuel systems etc stay same). And I would see all variants as payware addons for the modules, so if you want example Mi-24V after Mi-24P, then you need to own Mi-24P first to buy the Mi-24V. This way a base model could be used as one income, and then variants to be purhaced after that as extra income.

 

But to expect those to come on release? No. To come to existing aircrats as they were in reality? No.

 

People should fly the F-5E as it was operated.

But as well I see the sad part about how people will feel that missiles like AIM-9 has so low hit ratio, but in reality it has low hit ratio. So we expect people to really have miracles in all missiles etc instead flying with the low changes to hit the aircrafts with even most advanced AAM. There is still a reason why aircrafts has the cannons....

[KansasCS]

What to expect...

A more humble community that is aware of the fact that modeling aircraft for DCS can't be compared to war thunder or Ace combat arcade stuff.

(Most of us do, but a lot don't.)

 

That variant bit is a difficult topic.

First, because coding a different variant is more then just slapping new missiles and a paintjob onto it. Some variants had different powerplants and avionics all together, effectively making it a different aircraft. Looks and 3D modeling are the least bit time consuming in relation to systems modeling, so just because the base aircraft is the same, doesn't mean it takes a lot less work to create a different variant. And if all the systems remain the same, like you suggested, then I don't think that it merits an extra fee and should be covered with the 60$ I payed for the initial module.

Secondly, and this is a guess, devs model aircraft they have access to. Just because they can take apart an F5 in Nevada or someplace and talk to pilots there, doesn't mean they can use that info for an export variant sitting elsewhere.

Thirdly, if the documentation is scarce, which undoubtebly it is for prototypes, devs won't go through with it either. So there is your answer concerning RWR in the KA 50.

Fourth, and this is personal taste, creating a system whereby I pay for minor addons is not my cup of tea. Modules and campaigns is one thing, but I cringed at texture packs for instance. If every last extra detail is to be subject to payware, I'll look into different filight sims over the long run.

[gavagai]

I love the Mig-21, but I skipped the F-5E because of the decision to model a variant with only 2 sidewinders. With a 4 sidewinder loadout a mission designer could restrict the loadout to 2 sidewinders as desired, but going in the other direction means a mod and breaking integrity checks. A little more flexibility seems like a good idea to me when we have so few DCS-level fighter jets.

 

The F5 has been out for less than two weeks, is still in alpha, and already a thread is ensuing about it's lack of missiles etc.

 

Weren't there discussions about it before the alpha release?:)

[KansasCS]

 

 

Weren't there discussions about it before the alpha release?:)

 

Yes indeed, and those were equally redundant.

In any case, if we were to have four heaters to the jet, which would be a deviation from the original F5E which could only carry 2xAIM9 on the wingtip, people would complain about the lack of AMRAAMs.

[ST0RM]

So I'm reading through the various replies and came to this thought.

In Vietnam, guys were lucky to ever get a shot on one MiG, nonetheless multiples in a single sortie. And that was in the Phantom, designed for that mission.

 

The F-5 isn't a long-range fighter. It has short legs, and small teeth. A low cost solution for small countries to add some A-to-A defense.

 

This module is NOT the export version, nor an F-16. It's not an Ace Combat jet where you can shoot down an entire wings worth of fighters in a single mission.

 

To fly and fight in it, you have to learn to be selective in your missions. Pick your shot and then RTB or reengage with guns if the opportunity arises. I love using the dead is dead mindset. If I die in a mission, especially if I pushed it too far, then that logbook closes forever.

 

Because this is a game, people expect to become and Ace in a day. In this module, it's not going to happen. It's frustrating that people gripe about what it cant do and expect something they knew long ago, wouldn't be there.

 

Granted, the broken stuff needs to get fixed, but the rest comes off as kids whining.

[TheFace]

I am fairly new to jet combat, and completely new to 3rd gen. Coming from a primarily gun only prop sim background, I don't find the F5 to be lacking the ability to kill. @Hadwell killed me several times on ACG last night, that's not the Tiger's fault :).

 

The sidewinders are hard to use, but the radar & RWR is key IMO to the Tiger's superior SA as well as a really good gun & gun sight system. Being that WW2 planes are what I fly, the Tiger feels like a huge upgrade to me. That it is primarily a gunfighter is a huge plus for me, too.

 

One strategy I think works great is to go in with guns first, and if the Mig tries to out-climb you then line up for a good sidewinder shot as they usually go afterburner. Several kills that way yesterday. Gun kills are usually easier than I am used to as well.

 

I haven't flown the Mig, but it doesn't seem to wildly outmatch the Tiger at all. Tiger has to go guns more, and doesn't have radar guided missiles. Its IR missiles are tough to use, yes, but rewarding when you get the kill.

[Exorcet]

coding a different variant is more then just slapping new missiles and a paintjob onto it. Some variants had different powerplants and avionics all together, effectively making it a different aircraft.

It doesn't actually have to be this way though.

 

I still like what LN did with the MiG-21, a simple way of adding more value to the module by allowing it to represent more than one model. They did it wrong and didn't give any indication of what went where and provided no way for an end user to separate the models from each other, but that's an error of execution rather than an inherent problem with what they did.

 

Adding more missiles to the F-5 is as simple as enabling AIM-9's under the wings via a checkbox. It allows users to enable or disable the feature, which leaves the basic module 100% realistic while also allowing you to simulate something else. Less than 100% simulation doesn't stop something being a simulation. DCS is already less than 100% accurate (just look at ECM) and things like CA can provide something convincing even when the technical aspects are far off.

 

A quick payload edit of the F-5 would not warrant a new module experience from the cockpit, but it could be a convincing enough simulation from the cockpit of another plane or an interesting what-if experiment.

[KansasCS]

Exactly, it's not a 100% realistic sim for obvious reasons, bit it should strive to be. Adding a 4 missile Option would be a step in the wrong direction.

People can mod all they want, really no biggy, but budging devs to add features that just aren't part of the real jet is something else entirely.

In terms of ECM, well, that stuff is partially highly classified by nature. So the lack of simulation there is understandable. Information of payloads however, is available, and if I'm shelling out 60$, I want to know the devs worked their asses off to make it as close to life as possible(which they did), not fulfill some air quake dream.

That is not the point of this sim.

If you want to have more missiles on a small fighter, I suggest the Mig21.

 

 

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[KansasCS]

I second that what ST0RM said.

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[Capn kamikaze]

People can mod all they want, really no biggy, but budging devs to add features that just aren't part of the real jet is something else entirely.

 

Which is why I said I'd like to see a version of the F-5E that can in addition to the F-5E-3, because there are versions that are, it would be a much more useful jet.

[KansasCS]

Goals of devs don't measure themselves by what is useful or not. But by what they are comfortable with modeling and and the degree of accuracy to the real deal.

The latter is why we're not having 4 missiles on the F5.

You don't see A-G weaponry on the F15 either.

 

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[KansasCS]

I think you're not getting the point of simulations.

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[Capn kamikaze]

You don't see A-G weaponry on the F15 either.

 

 

I fully get the point of simulations, I think you're not getting the point of versions.

[KansasCS]

I meant in DCS...

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[Darkbrotherhood7]

 

I fully get the point of simulations, I think you're not getting the point of versions.

 

That's the F-15E.

 

AFAIK the F-15C is actually capable to carry A/G bombs IRL.

[Capn kamikaze]

That's the F-15E.

 

AFAIK the F-15C is actually capable to carry A/G bombs IRL.

 

Yeah, I know, I was trying to make the point that there are versions of the F-15 that are air to ground capable, and adding such a version would not change what the C model can and can't do, just as adding a version of the F-5E with a better, more useful A-A capability would not change what the F-5E-3 can and can't do.

[KansasCS]

Not sure which Version of the F5 can carry four heaters, the sources differ. In any case, if that would be the case with the DCS version, you'd complain about the lack of AMRAAMs. Again, if you're unsatisfied with it's AA capabilities, fly a different jet. The Mig, the eagle, the Mirage all have more missiles.

Right now Belsimtek is focusing on the bugs and getting it out of alpha AS IS.

Adding features should be the least of their concern. It's an insanely fun and flexible module. I'm sure Belsimtek had their good reasons not to model a 4 heater version.

 

DCS has a half a dozen dedicated AA platforms in stock, yet people want constantly more. All the time.

 

Calling it now, once the F18 inventory and capabilities are outlined further, people will find stuff to complain about.

 

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[Capn kamikaze]

you'd complain about the lack of AMRAAMs.

 

No, I wouldn't.