=475FG= Dawger

Ignore it. If you are VFR, look out the window and navigate via pilotage. If you are not VFR, you are flying radio nav, in which case just follow the needle. It only really matters when IFR trying to do precise dead reckoning and the maps are so small in DCS that it doesn't really matter.

Yes. It requires fairly sharp back stick at touchdown to avoid the nose falling. It feels like autospoilers deploying, which isn’t right but ground handling is notoriously bad in all simulations, even multimillion dollar ones.

I always hated FFB sticks. Didn’t feel like a real aircraft at all. Hopefully they will someday be better.

From a philosophical viewpoint, denying access to the macrosequencies.lua does not comport with the idea of DCS as a sandbox. ED and multiple third party providers provide access. Razbam does not. I view in the same light as denying custom liveries would be viewed by someone who wants to make their own livery. From a practical standpoint, we are a group of PvP players flying multiple aircraft. Many are retired or active real world aviators with no desire to flip pretend switches. None want to try to stay current on multiple start procedures. And access to the file allows customization far beyond the simple start sequence, doing much more cockpit setup much faster than the stock macro. It is poor customer service unworthy of my dollars.

Negative AoA in the takeoff stance causes the inability to smoothly rotate and is correct for the F5. I have experienced this in other jets IRL. You yank the aircraft off the ground and then apply forward stick to stop the over rotation. The DCS F-5 can be aerobraked with correct technique. It does feel like it has autospoilers deploying at wheel spin up which is an odd quirk in the DCS FM. As to roll sensitivity, an extended stick is the cure. The longer, the better. In general, induced drag at high G seems a bit underwhelming throughout DCS. The F-5 has some FM weirdness that make it feel strange. The ability to generate high G without any visible nose movement is an example. You can crack off the wings with very minimal pitch change, which defies the laws of physics. Its fun to fly as a trainer and PvE but its flaws and frailty make it a bit frustrating in PvP. However, there is nothing similar for a Guns and Poppas scenario so we are kinda stuck in it. I enjoy flying it PvP a great deal but wish it were more accurately modeled.

Its what simulators are for. Skipping bits you already know and doing things that are incredibly dangerous in the real thing. Butterfly sets are a great example. They are a safety driven procedure. You never lose sight of the other guy. In a simulation, you can do beak to beak merges without prior visual acquisition in complete safety and skip the trip to practice area if those skills are already adequately honed.

I am a PvP, MP guy. I evaluated one F-5 BFM campaign just to see if it was suitable. Lots of required Nav points to get to the airspace block to fight multiple bandits. Not suitable. The best thing is an instructor that knows BFM and how to teach it and willingness to practice a lot. You can self teach but its much harder and slower.

Good luck and thanks for looking

Doing merges pre-supposes you have already covered the basics of BFM. If you read this thread, you will find that I recommend a serious effort on the very basics of formation flying/joins as the learning laboratory for the geometry of BFM. To quote myself, if can’t join in formation with someone that wants you to, you will be hopeless against someone actively trying to prevent it. Basic formation flying is where you learn the rudimentary concepts of the turn circle, pursuit curves and lead turns. Once a firm grasp of that is achieved, you then move to the application of follow on BFM as they pertain to offense and defense. Only after all of the above do I recommend 1 v 1 similar High Aspect events. And it doesn’t take many merges to learn speed management, especially with the glass wing on the F-5. The key is a firm foundation in the very basic concepts ingrained by lots of repetition which simulation excels at providing. The fight in DCS PvP is generally won pre-merge barring gross errors. 90% of PvP DCS Cold War fights can be won by knowing how to do lead turns so you don’t need an extensive tool set to be successful . The other 10% are where the fun lies because of the greater challenge and varied skillset required.

I wouldn’t waste time flying from takeoff into butterfly merges. The most efficient method is to make a mission with air starts with the aircraft pointed at each other about 10 miles apart. You can get much more meat out of your training time.

I have been watching some of my old Cold War videos and getting nostalgic. Important life lesson. Enjoy every moment of the good times. They are fleeting joys, never to return, only to be replaced by fading memories and poor facsimiles.

A vertical fight transition to rolling scissors ending in a gun’s kill. With Tacview and some notes

No labels. Missiles and guns. Hope it makes you feel better

Your supposition that aft CG will produce a lower airspeed is incorrect. Aft CG results in less tail downforce required, reducing the amount of induced drag produced by the horizontal stabilizer. The result is increased speed. CG does not determine AoA required for level flight. That is a function of weight and speed. CG affects the aerodynamic forces required to maintain the desired AoA.

While I am not in favor of catastrophic failure at the precise published limit, if it were to be applied, it MUST be applied in the same manner across ALL modules without exception. Of course, my perspective is that of a PvP player in MP.

Thank you for your effort. I hope you succeed.

If you bother to study the documents available in this and other threads regarding this issue, you would find that the structural testing programs that simulate the expected stresses assume quite a large number of high G excursions. For example, the F-5, it was assumed 9 G would be exceeded approximately 160 times per 4000 hours. For the F-15, 12+ G is going to be a bit less often but 9 G is common in the F-15C and F-15 and its not far from 9 G to 12 G when the adrenaline is flowing. Its going to happen a lot more than you think. As a real world fighter pilot friend said recently after breaking the wings off a DCS F-5 in a normal guns reposition “ No one would fly a fighter they are scared of “ That sums it up. If the wings cracked off during normal BFM on a regular basis, the aircraft would have been long retired instead serving for 5 plus decades

I suspect you are being purposely dense so I will be clear. There are NO examples of the F-15 shedding its wings at 12+ G ( Car crashes causing death of occupants) while there are multiple instances of the F-15 sustaining 12+ G without catastrophic wing failure. ( car crashes with no dead people) “Guesstimating” that a brand new fighter aircraft will shed its wings the very first time it achieves 1.5 its published G limit is a ridiculous standard. To add insult to injury, this ridiculous standard is arbitrarily applied to the F-5 while others suffer from no such adverse application.

Except you have no examples where the people died in the car crash, only instances where they didn’t.

I find the AI extremely easy to beat except at ACE level. If you aren't winning against the AI, you don't understand BFM. This is F5 versus F5 AI at ACE skill level. It wasn't exactly hard to win.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA032403.pdf We do, although the language may not be as direct as one might desire. A careful read will determine that the F-5 was static tested to ultimate load of 1.5 times 7.33 G with NO STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Also, the F-5 was subjected to 4 lifetimes of expected real world loads (4000 hours, 3244 flights per lifetime) with two additional, more severe lifetimes underway when the report was published. There is a chart that clearly indicates that 9 G was expected to be exceeded approximately 40 times per 1000 hours or 160 times per lifetime. The chart ends at 9 G so there is no clear extrapolation of the number of 10+ G excursions but its pretty clear that more than one 10G+ excursion was to be expected during a normal lifetime. Also, you state that the the F-15 suffering catastrophic failure at >12 G seems correct yet we know for a fact that exceeding 12 G in the Eagle resulted in bent wings, not snapping off. Cheers!

Catastrophic wing failure rarely, if ever, occurs at the initial over-G, especially if it is short duration. The catastrophic failure normally occurs at a later loading of the wing. Normally, one would see indications of the over-G such as fuel streaming from the wing tanks, unusual control inputs for straight and level flight, etc. More significantly, other parts of the airframe break before the wing does. The structural testing program report I posted in another thread clearly indicates that there was NO structural failure at ULTIMATE LOAD. There is direct evidence against catastrophic failure yet we have catastrophic failure at ultimate load. Why the F-5 was chosen for this draconian treatment remains a mystery, especially with direct written evidence contradicting the modeling and 5 plus decades of hard aircraft service with no anecdotal examples of wing structural issues.

Amen

Bump. Please do this. I refuse to buy any of your products until you commit to providing edit access to the autostart scripting. i would really love to buy the F-15E but not until I can access autostart scripts in Razbam modules.