Kev2go

No I'm complaining about reselling flaming 2024 as a new product and not improving the models, because some are making the excuse it wasn't nessesary because some like the f15c got a very marginal facelift for FC3. Take for example how a10c and ka50 v2 got free visual updates but a10c 2 and ka50 v3 still had further improvements to the 3d model not withstanding additional features. They need to do things more efficiently then because the f5e doesn't look like over 7000 man hours.

I was assuming ED already had such information. I dont see how the ALR87 rwr was even modelled if the development team didn't have a 2006 Natops manual F5E/F/N as reference material back when the module was being developed.

Compare F5E old vs new. That is an actual notabe difference in cockpit detail fidelity even though thats been demonstrated to be a retexture and not a from the scratch remaster, only the exterior 3d model is, so the F15C "update" in comparison looks like a joke. At the time no one really said anything because it was free. But sure because FC3 so called visual retexture FC2024 didn't need any visual updates let alone a "remaster" even though being sold as a new product

Which graphical update? The one where the f15c still looks the same? Ahh yes so that's the reason fc4 didn't need an actual remaster of the aircraft. Again proving the point its a bottom of the barrel cash grab that offers nothing new except a copy paste of some vintage cold war fighters from ff format. like if your trying to appeal to people who dont want full fidelity youd want to at least offer up to date 3d model that looks comperable to a standalone type module and not still like something from 8 to 10 years ago. Anyways like I said. Maybe better luck for fc5

Fc4 wasn't remastered either.... if you purchased it you paid money to have fc3 tier variants of f86,mig15, f5, mig21. Ah well maybe better luck with fc5.

Because the US never employed the F5E in any official combat capacity. IT was only ever adopted and operated as an aggressor aircraft. youd be correct. it is not 100% accurate to any US variant. IF it lacked RWR and CM, it would otherwise be accurate to a USAF aggressor operated F5E3. it makes sense from a pragmatic POV to include RWR and countermeasures, since your F5E would otherwise be really handicapped without those even in cold war multiplayer servers against contemporaries. but i wonder why they didn't Do digital radios or INS at that point it would be a Swiss F5E3 or USN F5N. Maybe it was cutting development cost to omit additional radios and INS. I dont know the real reason but i would say it was not due to lack of documentation. Id be confident enough to assume they had the Natops manual as reference material that covered the F5N. ( given DCS F5E specifically mentions ALR87 rwr and CM combo)

The old f5e even with nation restrictions has more skins available. Maybe more skins will get thrown in in future patches on new f5.

Anvil doesn't require the entire plane to rebuilt, because nothing was said about all of the avionics system needing to be linked and done like the F4. I was only talking about the radar simulation . Regardless of HB proprietary tech, community has been asking for a radar fix from ED since forever. F16 and F/A18 Hornet got radar changes and they are not using any other 3rd parties proprietary tech. When it comes to the new 3d model the Radar scope display is just a green tinge, and aught to be tweaked.

Some of the Navy F5 agressors were fitted with VOR/ILS

the F5E's in USAF and USN aggressors squadrons didnt have RWR or CM even post cold war in the 1990s. That feature was not existent until the US navy buybacks of Swiss F5E's going into retirement. Enter the US navy F5N circa 2006, although the Swiss F5E's did have INS and Digital Radios. the F5N section of Natops manual references Aim9M/CATM-9M combability for wingtip pylons. But navy apparently also started removing guns from F5N's.

Would have added Digital radios, INS, and ILS/VOR as part of the wishlist because thats what a swiss F5E or US navy F5N ( buybacks) were fitted with. information on these systems should have be readily available in the reference material developers had at hand when F5E module was initially developed. I assume as such since ALR 87 RWR and CM are included.

Guess this needs to be wishlisted since no radar improvements with the "remaster"

Aim9M/CATM-9M is only referenced as a valid loadout for the F5N wingtips in the NATOPS : NAVAIR 01-F5AAA-1 published 2006. Aim9L isn't mentioned but i would assume if F5N rated for 9M it could mount the 9L even if its not explicitly mentioned.

it would be nice if the F5E got an updated radar simulation. I kept hearing Heatblur was supposed to offer thier pulse radar simulation tech to ED? So it could be adapted to ther modules like the F5? With how the Swiss F5E model was shown off with the new dorsal antenna on the 3d model it was also speculated there would be additional features like Digital radio and INS. guess not. But it makes sense why the cockpit was not shown off until the release of the F5E "remaster", people would of realized they are only paying for a visual update, something you got for free with past modules like A10C or Ka50. ED used to only charge money if the "upgrade" included a new variation with some new extra features.

Yeah no radar fix yet. Looks the same.

The only thing i found regarding platform upgrades to remaining agressor F5N's all pertain to updated avionics, such as replacing radar display scope for a multifunction display. Based on the photos it appears to also have GPS aided navigation and its own Nav page, but its definitely a later upgrade as its not in the 2006 natops. Otherwise the only valid air to air armament are only for the wingtips.

I don't think this ever actually implemented. its not in the USAF F5E dash 1', Dash 34's or natops F5E/F/N manuals.....The above excerpt is just from a defense contractor's website trying to advertise upgrades for potential users of the F5 Tiger platform. https://www.tigercenturyaircraft.com/products The only "upgrade" from that list that i can tell was documented in USAF and USN F5 manuals the W6 LERX or IHQ, which is what F5E-3 models were installed with from the factory, but the above defense contractor advertises a retrofit program for older airframes pre F5E3. Otherwise its like the similar sort argumentation was made by the community to include stingers on the Ah64D, stuff that could theoretically be added, but wasn't by ED because US armed forces never actually used such a modification. a X4 sidewinder configuration would make more sense as a community mod.

would of loved to see an upgrade to a proper swiss F5E/ USN F5N type which would be same as now, just with new digital radios and a INS. This is the version that should have been modelled to begin with as aggressor F5E's in the US air force or US navy didnt have RWR or countermeasures mounted. ALR87 rwr are a development/variation of AL46 meant for the swiss air force, abd the US would not have these until the the US navy manage to arrange some buybacks from the swiss circa early 2000s. Although with the new external model already having some changes to airframe like the new dorsal antenna associated with the new radios, so it would be unusual to have these external 3d model additions without planning to change avionics of the internal cockpit.

Yeah swiss f5e,s have new radios and a ins, and usn navy aggressors operated them after purchasing them via a buyback in the 2000s and redesginating to the F5N. So documentation on the INS and UHF SE-052 radios is available in NAVAIR 01-F5AAA-1 (2006) if they wanted to model them in the remaster. It is indeed strange to have a new antenna if there are no plans for avionics changes. It should be noted dcs f5e for all intents and purposes was almost a swiss f5e or usn f5n because it had the alr87 rwr and countermeasure system, but lacking ins and different radios. The earlier agressor f5e's in the usn prior to the buybacks, or the ones operated by usaf for aggressor use didn't have rwr or countermeasures. https://www.militaryperiscope.com/weapons/sensorselectronics/electronic-support-measureselectronic-warfare/analr-87/overview/

Its been a while since i viewed the manuals but i dont recall usaf or usn flown f5e/n aggressors having option for 4 aims ? The us aggressors also didn't use external refuel probe being a thing for those models. So which foreign operated f5e is this new updated model based on? a new antenna i notice on the extern model so I assume new radio(s) in the cockpit where arc 164 is currently installed?

If its not a AH1W "whiskey" cobra. i would hope to at least have the AH1F cobra. late in thier life you had them refitted with more capable APR39A v1 RWR, and GPS recievier. Like seen in this national guard AH1 cobra footage recorded in 2001. The GPS bolted into the left side of the dashboard is referenced in the 1996 revision of the Ah1S manual and the 2001 Ah1F publication.

Yes i also mentioned this less common configuration existing with Uh1's based on information i found in electronics configuration manual and was the configuration of the image i had posted earlier. A Wisconsin national guard Uh1V with its cockpit photo being taken in 2008 . 200 Uh1V is still significant enough of a number. Its 181 more then the total amount of Ka50's produced, and yet that exists as a module in DCS, even in spite such a small number of aircraft also having varying configurations. . Ive also found photos pf whats claimed to be Uh1H with less common Uh1V type configuration, but with radar altimeters removed, since these retired from military service. https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10597054 https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8520588 No one is saying uh1h is a frontline aircraft post cold war, but thats the time setting the dcs huey is already represented in. AS already established we have upt until 1990s era features included into the DCS uh1H , so arguing that a huey should not get Xyz feature because it represents an era of non combat frontline use in the post cold era just doesn't fly.For the sake of usability it would of just made more sense to have an option for an/asn175 cugr since it is a standalone GPS device, Not to mentioned you already have a tail end of the 1990s aircrew judging by the body armor the door gunners wearing. Even the dcs mi8 module got a integrated ns430 addon, and that's just a off the shelf civilian GPS not commercially available until 1997. It was not an official adoption issue of Russian military. At least the ASN 175 was officially adopted and installed in UH1H/V's, rather then just being a 1 off field modification out of a pilots personal pockets who wanted better navaid, or only something retrofitted post military retirement and only used in civil aviation. The ircm mount isn't mentioned in the Uh1H/V 1988 ( or later) manuals, although i haven't come across any earlier ones to compare. Either this feature was deleted by 1988 or it was a field mod that was only tried in the aforementioned deployment, and never updated in the UH1H/V manuals . Ive only read about ALQ-144 IRCM installation referenced in the EH1H/X 1983 manual( 1989 revision) which is the dedicated EW variant of the UH1H. The An/Apr39 for something that was allegedly super common doesn't appear in many photos or video recordings taken of UH1H/V's in action. The below image image is from Valkenburg taken on 21st of November 1990. These birds were going to be flown to the ports in Rotterdam, the last hub before being shipped off to the Gulf for ODS. I can only make out 1 of these hueys appearing to have APr39 sensor mounts installed. Not really fair to try to compare wish listing of features that can be added with a hypothetical Uh1H model update ( and aught to have of been originally included) such as ASN/175 CUGR standalone GPS in a UH1H huey cockpit to the equivalent of asking for a totally different helicopter like the Uh60. Like its not controversial to just have multiple configurations of the same helicopter/ Oh58D has a legacy configuration with IRCM, or the 2011+ era configuration that replaced IRCM with CWMS and also includes L2M ( drone ) functionality. Just like Mi8 module if you own the NS430 addon, you have checkbox for whether to mount the GPS receiver or not. I Dont have a 2015 Uh60A/L manual on hand but looking at the 2009 publication of the Uh60A/UH60L operators manual its still basically the same helicopter avionics wise as what in the Uh60A/Uh60L 1996 manual (2001 revision) with the exception of the AN/ASN-128D doppler GPS replacing the ASN-128B Doppler GPS. The CDU for the nav system have the same format, its a marginal upgrade. The only other difference that comes to mind is that Uh60A's eventually( UH60A+) are refitted with the 701C engines that Uh60L were installed with from the get go. The 2009 publication includes performance charts for both Ge 701C and now GE 701D engines, so presumably some Uh60's were upgraded with the engines from the UH60M, but otherwise retaining the old-school avionics.

Hope the f5e remaster has the new radios and, and the ins system of the f5n ( still technically an f5e as they were buybacks from the swiss)

Here are some examples of a UH1H with APN 209 radar altimeter mounted in same place as in the DCS UH1H. according to the latter video title this UH1H was part of 3rd battalion 159th aviation regiment ( which is a aviation unit of the 101st Airborne) THis article from 1999 mentioned AN/ASN175 was going to be retrofit in the majority of remaining UH1H/V helicopter fleet, which coincides with the introduction of the same body armor the door gunners are wearing in the DCS UH1H (PRU61A) https://armyaviationmagazine.com/images/archive/backissues/1999/99_06.pdf page 41 of 45

Foreign users generally have thier own separate manuals. Like For example the F16AM MLU dash 1 and Dash 34 is floating out there for Chilean air force or the F16C block 50 dash 1 and Dash34's for the Hellenic Air force. All of the stuff i founded regarding Uh1H was taken from the Uh1H/V manuals published specifically for the US army, not any foreign variant. All of the stuff i mentioned was officially available for US army US regardless how common or uncommon it was. it should also be noted that Bell offered Uh1H II upgrade program that included some features from twin huey (212) plus a 1800 SHP engine to many of these foreign users that had all these retired surplus hueys dumped on them. UH1C/M operators manual published 1980 is still floating around. IF they had really wanted to do a short body they could have done it.....