=475FG= Dawger

It does look moldy.

This is mostly correct. The F-5 in DCS does not have artificial feel modeled and the rate of deflection of the HSTAB is nearly instantaneous. You can generate 13G without appreciable nose movement. This can be overcome with some practice but it makes the aircraft extremely unrealistic. Also, the roll limits are misinterpreted, so that any roll input, however minor takes the wings off at high G level. This is a big issue fighting PvP against Gen 4 opponents and when coming off high closure guns passes.

This iteration of In Country: Vietnam is dead. Several of the original members have stood up a new group. However, we aren’t quite to the point of opening up to new members. I expect that to happen early next year. There will be a post when that happens.

No thanks. I have already wasted many hours researching the aforementioned post and several others as well as posting multiple tracks and videos of the behaviors of concern only to be told to stop doing things that make the wings break. I don’t think it was you but honestly don’t remember. The F-5 desperately needs artificial control feel modeled for the pitch axis and it needs someone who can correctly interpret and apply the roll limitations. If the change notes someday include those items, I would be happy to test them. Its good see acknowledgement of catastrophic failure as unrealistic and hopefully that will be corrected in the short term.

There is ample evidence that the real F-5 is much, much stronger than the way it is modeled in DCS. I posted this a long time ago. If you read the linked document carefully you will discover the official fatigue testing program expected 40 9G excursions per 1000 hours (160 excursion per lifetime of 4000 hours) and tested accordingly. The F-5 went through the equivalent of 4 lifetimes of testing or 640 9G excursions with no issues. One can safely assume that expecting 160 9G excursions means at least one excursion per lifetime far in excess if the aircraft/pilot is even able to successfully get to G levels above 9G in the F-5. I suspect actually generating 13G in a real F-5 isn't physically possible. There is written evidence that the F-5 is built to withstand severe punishment and it was presented to ED 3 years ago. The idea that an airplane proven to be able to exceed the published limitations 640 times with no ill effects loses its wings the first time you exceed the limitations is ridiculous on the face of it, yet it remains ignored and even championed by players who paid actual money for a module that was FUBARed intentionally years after its initial release. We all should have been clamoring for an artificial feel system, and common sense interpretation of the limitations 3 years ago. Instead, we hear the same " real fighter pilots never exceed the limitations" BS over and over even when presented with clear evidence that it was expected the limits would be exceeded very regularly.

Semi-related: When removing civilian traffic from a mission, it only removes the visuals. The traffic noise is still there. I built a Vietnam mission with a FARP on a road for the OV-10 and you can sit in the OV-10 or helo at that base and listen to the ghost traffic zooming past.

Its not a clean slate. Over three years to acknowledge and fix a bug in the pylons contributing to the ability to snap the wings off is bad faith. The absence of any flight control artificial feel system modeling is still not acknowledged which means more years of waiting. And the roll limits are obviously misinterpreted but this is also ignored. Yes, it’s probably a bit harder to crack the wings off in the F-5 than it was two weeks ago. That doesn’t mean it’s modeled correctly now. They fixed one bug after three years. To be honest, it is far too late in any case. The F-5 PvP scene is history and unlikely to ever return. I understand the F-5 is your dream and you desperately want it to be something other than a hot mess. Sorry to rain on your parade but ED really made a mess of the F-5 and then drove a stake in the ground and refused to budge while their third party developers, Aerges and Heatblur demonstrated how to properly interpret limitations sections and model flight control systems.

He will just be told to not do things that make the wing break. If ED didn’t take the easy money by fixing the wing concurrent with the release of the remaster, they never will fix the wing They had to know they were leaving many thousands of dollars on the table by releasing a glass wing remaster. We will never know why they didn’t take the easy win

That’s hilarious. It really is. And practice bombs actually make training less realistic ( although I know you mean “pretend to be a real fighter pilot’ when you say realistic)

Wouldn’t suck to remove practice bombs.

My 32 seconds of testing indicate a straight pull takes a bit of effort to snap the wings off but the wings will depart with far less than spring stop roll input. Better but still stupid. Less stupid. Maybe in three more years ED will announce another remaster and charge $15 for liveries and properly implemented roll limits.

I think the wings coming off is the caution.

What you describe isn’t hardcore at all. And if you bothered to do the actual planning yourself, you would learn a tremendous amount about your aircraft and, with some repetition, soon be able to make remarkably accurate performance estimates without the need for a computer. In addition, were such a thing to be produced by ED, the required inputs in order to produce an accurate results would be tantamount to doing the planning by hand. You would have to provide the planner every possible variable or be satisfied with a very limited profile. You have obviously never done any significant planning or you would realize the enormity of what you propose and realize that it is an unrealistic request counter to the supposed “simulation” experience.

Pilots did and do the planning, with or without computers. It shouldn’t be part of the mission editor functionality. Even putting in waypoints is solely for AI. Human players should plan their own routes, payloads and attack profiles for the designated target. The massive effort required by ED to implement something like this is completely unnecessary.

Part of "realism" is doing this yourself.

I was responding to Hobel saying “Just like the F-4” HB modeled the artificial feel system in the Phantom and gave players the means to adjust pilot “strength “ ED hasn’t bothered to model the springs and bob weights system in the F-5 which is the major issue with wing break. I’d like to be given the tools to halfway model my own but I will not ever expect it to happen.

The F-4 has a maximum force setting in the special options but this is only applicable because the F-4 has the artificial feel system modeled by HB so this is essentially setting the strength of the pilot. In the F-5, there is no apparent limitation on pitch deflection rate no matter the airspeed. One can nearly instantly produce full pitch deflection at any speed, simulating a very powerful hydraulic control system with the ability to overcome any aerodynamic pressure and lacking any sort of mechanism to prevent the pilot from inadvertently destroying his aircraft. This snip from an old Bureau of Aeronautics Fundamentals of Design of Piloted Aircraft Flight Control Systems put the need for an artificial feel system (force stability augmentation system) in simple terms. null I'd like an additional curve so I can define my own artificial feel system since the F-5 lacks one currently.

ED does this in other modules as well, not just with WWII engines. To compound the problem, they often incorrectly apply this very literal interpretation. I suspect the developers are not fluent in the language of the manual and are using Google translate instead of spending money on an actual translation by a qualified translator with aviation knowledge.

I stopped flying the F-5 because this issue has not been acknowledged. Even if one accepted the wings snapping off before any other component of the aircraft at the first instance of exceedance as realistic, there is still the ability to generate 13g almost instantly. This points to complete lack of modeling of the artificial feel system in the flight controls. To demonstrate just compare the F1 to the F-5 Identical structural limits Go fast, 550-600 knots. Rip the stick back. F1 will go through 60-80 degrees of pitch before the wings let loose The F-5 wings will be gone with almost no pitch deflection. Think about what that means. Couple that with misapplied roll limits ”Entering 360 degree full deflection abrupt aileron rolls” versus moving the stick slightly and losing your wings When this feature was first introduced, I had to add deadband in roll because even a straight pull was inducing enough roll to crack the wings off. When I stopped flying it, the wings would most commonly come off when coming off a high speed guns pass because I roll about 5 degrees as I come off to avoid the vertical stab on the bandit. The other situation was fighting a Mig-29. They have the thrust to maintain a pretty high G turn and any roll whatsoever in the F-5 cracks the wings off. I will note that it really only is a problem when fighting actual human players. Against AI, the fight is so tame and predictable, it really isn’t an issue.

Yes. There are some real world checklists that put the lever in down for landing, ostensibly to avoid inadvertent flap retraction in the event of an auto mode malfunction. Completely unnecessary in DCS as no such failure is possible.

No good reason in DCS to map the flap lever. Thumb switch is sufficient for all operations provided the lever is in Thumb Sw. If ever needed , the lever is clickable

VR is the closest thing to real flying I have ever experienced. I have noticed that folks who actually fly or used to feel this way and would not consider non VR virtual flight. Those with no real world experience to compare with are more inclined to be indifferent. VR is extra work and without that constant impression that you are actually inside the aircraft, the extra work may not seem worth it. YMMV

The reason 2x makes aircraft look “correct” is that any sort of approximation of a wide field of view results in “zooming out” essentially making what you are looking at farther away. ED has been captured by a subset of players and, possibly, employees who are not interested in making appropriate allowances for the limits of simulation. They actually believe they can create and inhabit a perfect replica of reality and cannot imagine any deviation from that ideal. It is frustrating. You say that someday there will be an alternative. Personally, I doubt that very much. I think air combat simulation is dying just as technology is making it exciting. My recommendation is to enjoy what you can, while you can. This is probably much nearer to the end than anyone realizes. And attempting any sort of discussion with SharpeXB is time wasted you will never get back.

It would be quite funny to pay even more money for wings that still fall off. I think I will pass. I haven't touched the F-5 in almost a year and now all the fun places to fly it in MP are history.

Something isn’t saving correctly based upon your description. You may want to post the mission