DaveRindner

Thank you all. But but my question is not answered. I am recovering on a field that is not departure, and ATC gives me QFE. In mission briefing it is also QFE, no QNH. So when given arbitrary QFE, what is QNH?

That should not be the an issue. Be sure NWS is ON and use rudder to steer. Normally the big black pinky switch has to be held down , not just pressed, held down. NWS gain is high so little bit NWS rudder gets you a lot of NWS turn.

DAMN IT. I JUST DONT GET QFE 2 QNH SETTINGS in F-5E I want to punch a hole in my panel. On approach I am given QFE of 25.23. Bloody hell what do I do with this number. The F-5E altimeter goes to 2810. !!!!!!(*)()(*)(*))_(*( "Yup, take the ad elevation in feet div by 30 (or 27 if you prefer) and that gives you a number to add to the QFE in hPa to give a pretty good approximation of the QNH. Look out for different units of measurements - obvious but important!" On this mission at arrival field, elevation 1360 meters/4460 feet. That means that if set on ground the altimeter setting is 2968. So how in the bloody hell do I take ATC QFE of 25.23 and turn it into correct QNH altimeter setting of 2968 or 29.68 . I am not seeing any relationship where 27 or 30 goes into. What does that mean, as applied to DCS: F-5E? It is embarrasing as it is annoying. I am missing some basic understanding of the proccess, but do not know what it is.

On taxi out NWS is fine. Wheel break is not a on/off, it is a pressure as it should be. The pinky switch should be bound to NWS. It is not an ON/OFF as it is on A-10C. It has to be held down for NWS to function, as it is in RW. If your rudder pedals have toe breaks, map those to differential wheel breaks. When NWS button is held down, rudder controls NWS. The issue in DCS:F-5E is that NWS rudder is extremely sensitive. So a small rudder deflection has large NWS deflection. The faster your ground speed the worse the NWS works. So it should not be used above 50 knots, and not even turned on until below 40. NWS is not self-centering. So before depressing pinky to activate NWS, have rudder centered. Before releasing NWS, have rudder centered. If rudder has deflection when NWS is activated, the gear will instantly and erroneously snap into that deflection. If NWS is released before rudder is centered, the gear will be stuck in that deflection, and aircraft will go out of control. It is likewise erroneous. So far BST has not fixed it.

High speed ground handling in DCS: F-5E is problematic, a bit flawed, and kind of difficult. Especially on landing. For departure, after centering on runway and raising oleo strut, turn NWS OFF, and use differential braking until 70knots, then use rudder untill lift-off. On Landing. On final, NWS OFF. On touch down, use aero-breaking, and rudder. On front gear touch down. Pop drag-chute. Keep NWS OFF. Use differential breaking and rudder until below 50 knots. At 50 knots activate NWS, and keep chute. Release chute on a taxiway, and taxi to parking. Gear breaks do not have NO SKID aka antilock breaks. If you press them more then 1/3 to 1/2 of amount, gear will lock and aircraft will skid out of control. Drag chute, IMHO, is the only way in this module to safely slow down to manageable ground speed. There are two difficult to land fixed wing modules in DCS. F-5E and Mig-21bis.

The F-20 as described in the book, is F-5F. The PMC pilots in the book are former US Navy F-8 and F-14 crews. There is also some interconnect with another novel called The Sixth Battle. Which should required reading for Naval Aviators. Anyhow in Warriors, PMC F-20/F-5F is without radar. It is set in MidEast desert, where it is mostly clear. So they setup a EW system based on specially trained Bedouins with binoculars to visually detect ingressing opponent.

Tom_19d. Your post sounds very similar to Barrett Tilman's Warriors(1990). About PMC pilots flying F-20G. The PMC squadron CO is talking to his XO, about how to fight F-20G against superior opponent. No radar, WVR onlym avoid sustained vertical.

Is 2.5 single threaded or multithreaded?

I am no Top Gun in F-5E, but here is my approach. If AG ordinance is expended, and ext. tanks are empty. Jettison. DO NOT JETTISON SIDEWINDERS! DO NOT FIGHT WITH AG ORDINANCE ON PYLONS! Set Sight rotary to Mis Wingtip pylons turned on. Wing and ventral pylons to off. Gun/Mis safety cover UP, safety switch to Gun/Mis/Cam All exterior lights to off. Like F-16 Dogfight mode, in F-5E gun and AIM9 are both active at same time, regardless of Sight Rotary. With separate bindings for gun and missile fire. DCS F-5E has two dogfight modes, 5 and 10 nm. Head on merge is at 10, then quickly switch to 5 for fight. Use radar for finding the enemy, and perhaps get initial AIM-9P5 seeker que. Once WVR (at 10 nm) radar STBY, let the seeker lock itself. Use uncage. Once the AIM9 tone is loud and high pitch you may fire. I find AIM-9P5 to have similar performance as AIM-9M in DCS. P is an earlier missile. In Falcon4 it is a rear aspect only, but in DCS it has decent all aspect performance. However it is vulnerable to AI countermeasures. I find guns to be usefull in DCS F-5E. Provided that Sight Rotary is AA-1 for fighters, and AA-2 is for larger slower pondering targets. DCS F-5E has lower power motors then RW, and bleeds energy quickly in a turn. So fight like Chenault Flying Tiger P-40s fought against superior AM6 Zero in China. One pass , haul ass. So merge, fire AIM-9. If target is superior , A Fulcrum, Flanker, F-15C, F-16, separate from fight. Full burners nose down dive like hell. Get lost in clutter or terrain mask into a valley or canyon. If target in inferior , split S or rolling scizzors, get into slight lag pursuit, and kill. Then run away like Knight That Say Nee. 'runaway', 'runaway'. So far I have only fought against AI in DCS: F-5E, so coming out of the sun at him does not work.

Thank you. Initially I thought it was a Soviet Sukchoi x-plane from 1950's. Also looks like Regulus cruise missile from 1950, but manned.

Mine is one man's opinion. However I have noticed, across years of DCS posts by former real pilots, that on high fidelity (PFM, ASM) modules, that the power availability was below real world, and energy loss a bit too abrupt . AI aggressors have power and energy advantage. Obviously this is when flying against AI. I kind of sort of wish that , at least AI fighters and fighter-bombers, nearest player would switch to AFM, PFM, from standard. While others can retain standard models.

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/06/19/5f/6f/carolinas-aviation-museum.jpg

39K with headwind. 42K with tailwind. Yep, thats pretty much the same as I get.

Isn't wind a component of KIAS or TAS, affecting ground speed. Headwind requires more power to maintain ground speed , to navigate correctly, as flight nav between any two waypoints is essentially dead reckoning. Conversely a tailwind pushes the aircraft, requiring less power to maintain ground speed. In flight nav coursework, I beleive that is referred to as 'computing offsets'. I recall a presentation on this by Cpt.Dale Brown (USAF Ret.), on work of navigator/WSO/OSO in F-111, B-52, and B-1B, on YT back in 2008(?). However I am unable to locate that vid today. Not to deviate from thread,carrier recovery is likewise aided by relative headwind. For recovery ops, carrier steams a course, such that landing strip (on angled decks) is pointed into the wind. With carrier doing 20 knots, and 10 knots wind, creates 30 knots (34.5 mph) wind over deck. If recovering aircraft is landed at 150 knots KIAS to the pilot, the ground speed at ramp would be 120 knots. I hope I have this right. Good point , on your part, about climbing into head and tail winds. What I am experiencing is at 38,500 - 39K indicated alt. My KIAS drops below 130 and airframe starts to shake in prestall, and begins descending with 20+ AOA. Even if I trim elevators to max, keep in full AB, I am unable to keep AC in level flight at altitude above 38,500. What I am asking is what is the maximum altitude that others have reached?

Good question. Not exactly certain. Except I begin my ceiling attempt with fuel slightly less then 1/2 in both tanks. Otherwise aircraft is clean. No tanks, no weapons, no pylons.

Source : https://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f5.htm Iranian 'Saegheh' (Thunder) is described as F-5E, likely rebuilt from existing fleet of F-5E sold to pre-revolution Shah regime, as F-5E with new motors (RD-33) , and twin v-stabs. I am not sure about engines,RD-33 are Mig-29 motors, and only one is used in JF-17, aircraft of similar size to F-5E. Shoehorning those large motors in F-5 engine bay would probably compromise its range and unrefueled endurance. Anyhow, do twin V-stabs add to the airframe. Twin V-stabs are used in larger fighter aircraft to increase rudder authority without increasing size of v-stab, which would limit its max G loading. F-5 is already small and light.Aside from Iranian attempt to make Saegheh a bit more akin to F/A-18 A/C and to differentiate 'Saegheh from F-5E. Would the twins add to maneuverability and nose authority ?

Reported celing of F-5E is around 51K feet. Source below: https://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f5.htm In DCS 2.5, starting from Instant Action/F-5E/Take Off from Batumi in winter, using full afterburner and shallow climb I am unable to breach 39,200 feet (calibrated) altitude. Nor can the aircraft sustain flying altitude in trimmed level flight above 38,500 ft. (calibrated). This is with clean airframe, flaps on auto, and fuel at slightly below 1/2. Let me just add, with me at the controls. I got DCS: F-5E only in December '17. Would like to hear what others attained in their F-5E self training. Thank you Cheers

GUIK gap. The naval equivalent of Fulda Gap in West Germany. In Red Storm Rising Iceland scenario. Soviet Russian paratroops and naval infantry occupy the island. NATO tactical airpower clashes with Russian tactical aircraft. Specifically Mig-29 vs F/A-18. So an updated GUIK scenario and theater would be interesting. Strategic goal would be to prevent Russian air, and naval units from using attacking US-UK supply sea routes. Key terrain would be improved runways in Iceland, Greenland, Faroe Islands, and Jan Mayen Island. Totally old school NATO-Air, Land, Sea Battle doctrine from 1980's. Air component fight would be over water and over mountainous terrain. Plenty of opportunity for terrain masking, in approach to target. Escort , CAP, OCA, DCA, HIVAL CAP by NATO to enable anti-submarine aircraft to hunt Russian subs and surface combatants, without threat of RuF. Prevent resupply or deployment of Russian ground forces into NATO territory. RuF's mission would be to prevent NATO from doing the above mission. So there is plenty of opportunity for carrier based aviation, land based aviation, amphibious warfare landings. This theater would be heaven from Viggen people. All those Fjords on Greenlan's eastern coast, Viggen was specifically designed for anti-surface, anti-landing strikes in such confined environment. What a great , but difficult theater that would be.

I think it just plain looks bad, and works poorly. Set to zero, 2.5 runs faster and smoother. The trees in 1.5.8 looked way better, and worked much better. Of course we could only judge 2.X performance from NTTR , so we never got to see 2.X performance and appearance in Georgia.

Very little of this makes sense, and generally does not work in my system. MSAA is absolutely FPS killer. With or without Nvidia panel AA settings. Deffered Shading is FPS murder and it looks awfull. Anisotropic Filtering. It slows down DCS 2.5, but not as bad as Defered Shade. Any setting that has Low/Med/High set to anything but low decreases performance.

I tried it every way I could think off. I could not find a settings that works.

The slider is for density of the trees. I am not certain what parameter controls when they appear. To me it looks like they are growing out the ground. I really dislike this implementation.

Sadly trees and grass, but especially trees look bad without Deferred Shading, and work poorly regardless of visibility range. Even at Ultra or Extreme and at 100% trees grow out of the ground. The higher the altitude the worse the effect, because there is less ground clutter to obscure the growing trees. I noticed that civilian traffic is likewise affected. Differed Shading is a FPS killer on my system, and it looks just awfull, regardless of Gamma. I do not understand what it is trying to do, or what it is really for. Maybe I am missing something, or my Quadro does not support a particular features used by Deferred Shading NTTR is effected much less by tree growth, but Georgia Caucasus is heavily compromised. I have rebuilt my metashaders, but on my machine, that approach does not change performance. I don't use MSAA, anisotropic filter, terrain object shadows, differed shading, and HDR. All these are set to off. The tree textures are brighter then terrain, which is distracting, as real trees are normally darker then ground, when viewed from distance and altitude. Aircraft textures are High, Terrain textures low, Visibility is low. 1 Screen (2560 X1440). In KA-50 and UH-1H, a helicopter can collide with trees. Problem is it collided with trees that do not appear in scene, but would appear if trees was set to 100%. You can test out this issue in Instant Action/KA-50/Free flight. Set the trees to 0 or very low number then fly into tree zone, which has dark patches where the tree would be. At very low altitude, in ground effect, slide the KA-50 over the tree splotch. it will collide with a ghost tree. Highest FPS I have ever gotten prior to 2.5 are 38-40. In 2.5, with settings above I am lucky to break 30, with 24-26 being norm. With trees at 100% I get 12-15 FPS, which is unacceptable. So DCS 2.5 is a stepdown in performance from 2.2 and 1.5.8. I was excited with 2.5 when it rolled out, but now not so much. Hopefully DCS will patch this up in short order. HP Z230 , I7-3770 3.4/3.7, PNY Quadro K4000, 32gb ram, 2560X1440 1screen for DCS. System vintage is 2013.

I dunno with detail what the specs are on machine that the sample missions were flown. By I guess it would be higher end I7-6890X ,Core I9 with K, 32 or 64gb ram, and 1080Ti or Pascal Titan, or SLI 2 10XX boards. In VFX post production, my employer/client usually issues me a box with similar hardware, and often a Quadro P5000 board. That is also a 'standard' specs for game, VR, and AR developers. Though realtime games and console game developers usually prefer GTX instead of Quadro. That kind of box can probably drive DCS 2.5 at max setting with three 4K panels. If it doesn't then DCS has some optimization to do. My box was decent home workstation about 4-5 years ago. I7-3770K 3.7ghz, 32gb ram, Nvidia Quadro K4000 (Keppler GPU). Driving 2560X1440 main screen and one 1920X1080 2nd panel. DCS is limited to main 2540X1440 panel. At best I can only expect 24-36 FPS, and lower with trees, and lower with Deffered Shade.

I suspect it is going to be a few updates before performance is optimized. I forsake all AA, Deffered Shading, and ground shadows. HDR and Lens Flare is on for sun effect. Daylight missions don't suffer from HDR set to OFF, but at night the ground is too bright unless HDR is ON. Otherwise night time missions are no harder then day time. Everything else is low.