dolfo

Intended feature rather than a bug? Check warning on T.O page 2-5? Pretty useful against a bright sky.

Copy and paste from the -1 page 1-118: An interlock between the supply lever and diluter lever causes the diluter lever to trip to 100% position when supply lever is at OFF.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Thanks. Seems like a good time to upgrade "stable" to beta.

Pylons seem to be weightless. Try the arming screen and look at the weight changes, compare to the manual stated weights. I recall weapon weight is added but not pylon weight.

I was under the impression this was fixed in 1.5 already? Trying 1.5.6.5199 and I see the old mach meter (0.5-1.0 dial)

+1 Very happy to see it working. Thank you so very much.

I would expect it to be so too. Not to open the proverbial can any wider or to stir up the worms inside, but to illustrate my confusion: I can find two versions of the T.O. 1F-5E-1, one is 'Original', change 0 and the other is Change 9, 1978 and 1990 respectively. The original, under Main Difference Table, Section I, 1-3, Figure 1-1 has the E-3 with the AN/APQ-153 radar and AN/ASG-29 optical sight. Change 9 has it with APQ-159(V)-3 radar and ASG-31 optical sight. If we check the Aircraft Designation Codes for both revisions of the T.O. we find different batches described as E-3. I would not know if some batches were retrofitted or if the definition of E-3 changed over time, or if the info we can find available for the public is wrong? *EDIT: The -34 differentiates radar models by flags (1, 2) rather than referring to the sub number. The T.O. also states that "Aircraft equipped with systems and/or equipment not included in this manual are covered in supplemental flight manuals" then proceeds to list the batch numbers and applicable T.O.s I think it is fair to guess said documents are still not available for public consumption. As a side note, there are more than one country that did/does use the F-5E with refueling probes. Not that it matters much. Very happy to read people are busy with the Hornet. Now someone must go and make a Switzerland map too, with the Axalp range included. Kidding. No, not really. As for the Swiss love for the F-5, I think it was rewarded/acknowledged by BST with the radio call plate in the instrument panel? That is not an US reg for sure. Hoping for a Beast callsign for the Hornet. But that belongs in another thread.

Didn't figure anything. Just stating that 'E-3" is not specific enough to describe all sub-variants and several configurations may be available under the 'E-3' category. Namely the batch of US F-5E-3 with different radar, avionics, instrumentation layout etc. But this will lead nowhere of course. Enjoy, have fun.

More different than one might think. The first batch did have the refueling probes (ok, export version I know), a radio altimeter, V/UHF comms, ILS. The second batch (ex-USAF aggressors) had the 153 radar, no RWR, and some other details different from the E-3 depicted in-game (and it was an E-3 [edit: not so sure about the E-3 anymore, have also seen the SN described as plain E] version too, configurations may vary). No argument against sticking to a specific version, but my opinion is that investigating the possibility of some E-3 versions being produced with the necessary structural reinforcements for fitting the refueling probe (it was detachable) is no more far fetched than investigating an E-3 with radar scope adapted for the AGM-65. And as I understand, one of the problems with the F-5 and AGM-65 was the unsatisfactory scope. Finally I would like to make clear I am very happy with the current state of the DCS-F-5E module. It is by far my favorite module, and I would gladly purchase an F-5E for export with the air to air refueling probe should it ever be released (but not an M/MLU/III version). No point in continuing to argue over preferences I think. I will continue to enjoy the module as-is and wish everybody good fun in the virtual skies.

I am aware that the simulated version is the E-3. So I asked if 'original' should be applied to E-1, making our version 'non-original'? What is the originality criteria. Anyway, it could safely be inferred the USA E-3 models were neither equipped with the refueling probe nor the AGM-65? The reports of AGM-65 usage I am aware of are export versions as well, so I can not understand why it would be more reasonable to have the maverick and not the probe. Capability expansion could be considered nil for the F-5/maverick anyway. If it was a good thing and worked we would have seen more of it.

How to define 'original'? For export, yes for sure. But still original F-5E. Not a MLU/M/TigerIII etc. Unless you want to say only F-5E-1 is 'original'. Anyway, keep up the good work and thanks for what has been done so far.

I would not think it 'unrealistic'. Plenty of F-5E with refueling probe. Yes, export models, but original F-5E even so. For example, the first Brazilian batch, 1975 (not the upgraded EM/FM). The second Brazilian batch, 1988-89, used F-5E-3 and four F-5F from USAF Nellis and Williams did not have the probes. All were brought to F-5EM/FM circa 2005 with standard refueling probe and better avionics. Obviously the F-5EM/FM would be out of the scope of the present F-5E-3 module, but the original 1975 F-5E should not be far from realistic. Very happy to hear that thought was given to it. As for the AGM-65, IIRC the scope was kind of problematic and never worked very well in the older versions. The MLU types might be a different story though. Personally I would much prefer time and resources be spent on a refueling probe that saw widespread use than on a semi-obscure AGM capability. Anyway keep up the good work! The F-5E is fantastic already. -dolfo

From the -1: Landing-Taxi Lights Two white landing-taxi lights, one on under- side of each engine inlet duct, are electrically controlled, two position, retractable high and low intensity lights. The two positions are full extension for landing and intermediate for taxiing. The lights extend and retract only when the position lights are on. The lights are turned on-off by the LDG & TAXI LIGHT switch.

Yes, that would be nice.

BIG improvement I think.

Well, that happens to be the seat I am using too. But not on a motion platform. I do use a center mounter Warthog, pressed just flush against the top of the seat cushion. That would be the maximal height I could use it efficiently. If I were to use any extensions I would have to trim the foam to allow for lowering the control stick mount (and I do plan to do just that). The seat is a good but not perfect choice. While economical, with a convenient back angle adjustment and seat sliding mechanism, the "ergo" shape is not helpful for flight sims if you mainly use VR, reason being they somewhat restrict (but do not impede) twisting and turning on seat to look behind you. Not a deal-breaker but worth keeping in mind. You get what you pay for in this case. (Not always true when purchasing more expensive seats)

1000m?

If you are still on the ground and you have a choice, then yes, of course. In our example I believe it happens after airborne, quite often too.

Technically, if they refuel you (offer support) they are no longer neutral. Should not even be allowed to takeoff again from a neutral field. Try placing the intended fuel stops in the friendly coalition and see if it works?

Was the airfield set to friendly coalition? I think neutral fields will not offer any service.

I would not waste time putting any thought on the Axalp shooting videos so as to infer dispersion values. Pilot inputs being an unquantifiable variable. I have seen a wide range of groupings over there, from very tight, 4 points on target to extremely wild and inaccurate shooting. One year Duck08 almost shot the mountain cabin near the targets while spreading his shells around the intended aimpoint. Not to diminish the valiant pilot's efforts, but to illustrate the point that we do not know what is causing the pattern dispersion on a video.

Bought the cheapest I could find new. Another point to consider, is your controller center-mounted or a side stick? If center mounted, make sure the seat part is not too long so as to interfere with an eventual need to lower the stick mount. Some seats may allow for the foam to be trimmed under the center mount so as to lower the stick a lot more. If you do use a sidestick or a throttle quadrant on the side, consider using a flat seat back. The "huggy" ones, while looking cool are not really practical if you need to move your arms forward and back a lot, or if you need to move around a lot to check 6 or something.

Are you using monitors or VR? I do use VR, which demands quite a bit of shuffling around. Bucket seats are nor really optimal. I would favor a flat seat back. Basically any car seat will do. I got something cheap online and hope to modify it (trim the foam) as necessity dictates.

I think that is a very safe bet. (A history function, not a predictive one)