cailean_556

With a "Cold War Germany" map being "soft announced" (shown in videos, publicly acknowledged by Wags in his most recent QnA, but not 'officially announced') the F-105 definitely has one of its "homes" coming to DCS. Hopefully a dev will pick it up, in time.

Are those 20mm or 30mm sparrows, sir?

It's definitely down in the weeds - I agree. But ED has made tweaks "for the sake of entertainment value" on some modules, or has supported said tweaks, while also clutching the mantle of realism and dismissing customer (for the sake of entertainment value) requests on others. NineLine and BIGNEWY have said, probably until they're blue in the face (not throwing shade here fellas, just stating a fact) that the F-5E variant modelled in DCS (the F-5E-3) cannot have these highly requested additions because the aircraft never had those things in reality - or at least words to that effect. The MiG-21bis in DCS can carry older missiles that only worked with an older radar - which allows it to simulate very early Cold War MiG-21s - at least in terms of weapons. The MiG-21bis can also carry nukes in DCS (though they did to this in real life too, but DCS doesn't want nukes...but allowed them anyway...). The C-101 can carry the Sea Eagle missile in DCS. In reality, only trials were done in this aircraft - by ONE country. It was never adopted. But it was added "for fun". The F-16C can carry 4 AGM-88 HARMs. USAF jets (which we're reminded our F-16 is modelled after) never did so, outside of trials. This was added - and stated as such - due to high demand from the DCS community. The Mirage 2000C can carry the DDM - a system only ever used on the Mirage 2000D. But it was added because, in theory, it could be. The JF-17 (which is modelled after a Block I) can be fitted with an IFR probe, which Block Is never really had - that was a capability added to the Block II. Eventually, all JF-17s would have IFR probes (that was the intent in reality, unsure if they did this by equipping the Block Is or replacing them with Block IIs - or if they've even finished). So the decision was made to retroactively add the IFR probe, as an *option*. Which only reinforces my point re: the F-5E and an IFR probe. We can either go down with the sinking ship of realism, or loosen our grip to enable aircraft modules get interesting (or highly requested) capabilities that value add to the module, and to DCS. And I'm not just talking the F-5 here. There's plenty of scope (and demand) for things like AIM-120 capable F-4s. Upgraded Su-27s (like a Su-27SM - Deka did make the J-11A variant for the Flanker and ED adopted it) hell, even variant upgrades to the F-16 - like a Block 52 with CFTs (the Blackshark III and A-10C II Tank Killer do this exact thing). Realistically, the F-5E-3s used by the US could be fitted with an IFR probe, they just never needed or wanted to - but they were plumbed that way at the factory. Just in case. Realistically, at the time the F-5E-3 was flying, there were other F-5Es flying that had the capabilities listed in my original post that the -3 lacked (but could also realistically be fitted with, even now - there's a whole company devoted to this). From a gameplay perspective (Wags has, just recently, described DCS as a 'simulation game') an extra pair of IR AAMs, an IFR probe definitely adds to the entertainment factor without completely dominating PvP servers (not that I personally care about that aspect, but it's still a consideration) and still retaining the same AN/APQ-159 radar, the same engines, the same flight controls. It's the same plane. (EDIT: Wags also recently stated that this USAF F-5E-3 was actually meant to be a Swiss F-5E...which the US bought back for aggressor duties - which blurs the lines of this jet actually is even more). Even if they decided to add the Maverick capability, it's a display screen (that in reality can be unscrewed, unplugged and changed out) and an stores selector panel with an extra position (which can also be changed out/rewired by maintenance staff). Still the same jet under the hood. As someone who owns the legacy F-5E module who has not yet upgraded (because I don't see the point just now, I'm okay with the graphical representation of my current F-5E - I'm sure I'll upgrade eventually but it's way, way low on my DCS priority list), if they added these options then it's a compelling carrot to dangle in front of me that will force me to at least reconsider whether I commit to the Remaster, or remain intent on purchasing the MB-339 when I have the time and money to do so, or another jet. And it may just sway others who don't have the F-5E to buy it also. If ED choses not to (as they've repeatedly stuck to their guns on this in the past) then so be it. I still have an F-5E - the module that brought me to DCS in the first place. But TL;DR is this: Allowances, for the sake of fun, have been made in other modules. A module is coming out - in a year, supposedly - that will be chock full of allowances. And that's okay. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, or that it won't be fun to fly. Or that it won't 'feel real'. But why is the F-5E any different to any of the aircraft I've listed? Especially now.

The Swiss Air Force is strictly anti-air/air policing, I don't believe they have a proper ground attack capability at all now (the Hawker Hunters were their CAS aircraft, after they were retired they had nothing). Tigers were too expensive to outfit apparently, and the funding for AG weapons for the Hornets (one of the reasons they were acquired in the first place) was reallocated. I'm not sure if an AG capability will be re-adopted when they get their F-35s.

Introduction I know that 'in reality', the specific subject aircraft was very limited in what it could, and could not, carry. I know that in US service the F-5E was used mainly as an aggressor for DACT (Dissimilar Air Combat Training) or similar roles. I know that the F-5E we have in DCS is the F-5E-3. If we're going to hoist the flag of realism real high, then the F-5E-3 we have in DCS shouldn't be used for actual (as far as DCS goes) combat. However, I will point this out: the remaster module is called the "F-5E Remaster" and the (now deprecated) original module is also called the "F-5E Tiger II". There's no mention of the "F-5E-3 Tiger II/F-5E-3 Remaster". With that in mind, hear me out. Improvements and capabilities have been added to modules before due to high demand, or because it suited, in the past. Point I'm making is the precedent of adding capabilities to aircraft that didn't have them previously is there. Looking at you, Ka-50 Blackshark III and A-10C II Tank Kiler. To be fair, I've seen more people asking for an extra pair of AIM-9s, AGM-65 Mavericks and an IFR probe on the F-5E for nearly a decade than I have for an upgraded Ka-50, or the F-35. But I'm not on the forums or Discord often. So considering 'high demand' was one of the reasons cited for the development of the F-35, it stands to reason 'high demand' here might be worth a bit more consideration. The F-5E represents a very broad range of aircraft that were tailored to meet the needs of their specific customer nations and/or were modified by their customer nations to suit their needs once delivered. They were 'modular by design' before being modular was a corporate buzzword, to cater for differing requirements (or incentives) among US allies. Local modifications, modifications fitted during the build based on customer specifications... Even today, some countries still use F-5s as lead-in fighter trainers - though admittedly far more advanced than the module we have in DCS. 4x AIM-9s Adding an extra pair of AIM-9s to the F-5E is probably the "easiest" addition to add for ED. And, like the F-16 carrying 4x AGM-88s, there's evidence that this was trialed though not widely adopted - due to the cost-benefit of adding extra drag to a light, underpowered airframe - something DCS pilots don't worry about all that much. The aircraft already knows how to fire AIM-9s. To facilitate the missiles (both in reality and in DCS), the outer pylons need to be fitted with a missile rail (likely a LAU-7 given the timeframe, although they could very well have been LAU-100/101s that were taken off the wingtips - outside my wheelhouse). I am assuming the pylons themselves probably needed to be modified/rewired - something that isn't required in DCS. In terms of PVI, the only extra thing the pilot needs to do is flip the outer pylon arming switches, in addition to the wingtip switches. I can't say for certain the sequence of firing but given I've read that the pylons were super draggy (not unlike the dual R-60 rails on the MiG-21) it would make sense if the missiles on the pylons were fired first (to reduce drag), then the wingtips. IFR Probe The IFR probe is another "easy" addition - and while even the -3 never had them fitted, the airframe was absolutely capable of having it fitted because that's how they were designed from the factory. It requires a model of the IFR probe to be made (a fairly "simple" asset to make, considering) and then requires the coding in the background to facilitate aerial refueling. The probe itself could be an optional extra in the Mission Editor/Arming menu. Tiger Century Aircraft (Tiger Century Aircraft) might be a great place to start for advice, they've assisted several countries with upgrading their F-5 fleets - Chile, Brazil, the Philippines, Taiwan. They even have some basic info on their (modern) system for quad AIM-9s (though I'm unsure if they were the original developer of the system - still handy to know) here: Products — Tiger Century Aircraft. I'm not demanding ED do the above (though I would honestly like it if they decided to...please?), but I'd be very surprised if any of the coders and artists working for ED, being used to churning out (relatively speaking) modules and assets month in and month out, couldn't achieve these "simple" additions in their sleep. In addition to the radios and INS that ED is considering adding, if they can get documentation (as per NineLine), the above additions expand the capability of the module in DCS, enable it to simulate the aircraft of multiple other countries (in and around the locales we have, or are getting) and also provide incentive to purchase the Remaster for those not seeing the benefit (other than enhanced graphical fidelity). AGM-65B Mavericks The addition of AGM-65 Mavericks was fielded as early as the early 80s. This is where the 'mighty' F-5E-3 falls down because the display used in the -3 lacks the ability to show TV signals - which kills the -3's ability to use Mavericks. HOWEVER... With a not-insignificant-effort on behalf of the 3D artists, and much like the nuclear weapon operation panel installation and removal of the main-gear doors that occurs when a nuclear bomb is fitted to the MiG-21, we could go from the 'normal' F-5E-3 cockpit: to this, if Mavericks are fitted to the aircraft (Taiwanese F-5E or F-5F with the AN/APQ-159-1 or -2 display, if it's an F): That particular display allows the F-5E to aim and fire Mavericks. The dimensions appear extremely similar between the -1 and -3 radar displays and the cockpits are practically identical, save the display and External Stores selector. Moroccan F-5Es were rocking IFR probes and AGM-65B Mavericks during the West Saharan War in the late 70s/early 80s... The External stores switch (which you may notice also has an extra position compared to the one in DCS currently) is turned right 1 place to 'AGM-65', the radar screen switches to display the Maverick seeker image, the missiles "warm up" (I think they actually cool down - don't they?) then displays the picture and the radar controls double as the controls for aiming and locking the Maverick... Ta-da! F-5E with Mavericks. So "simple", right? "Simple" because it's really anything but, but it's easier than making an entirely new F-5 module... Alternatively, the Maverick cockpit/capability could be an ME/Rearming menu option. While, realistically, such a modification to a F-5E-3 would take days, if not weeks, in DCS we don't have to worry about that aspect. Likewise, given the 'modular' nature of the F-5E in reality, if a country still using F-5Es today were to buy an F-5E-3 'back in the day', it is not outside the realms of plausibility that they could 'upgrade' that F-5E-3 to a standard that fit their needs relatively easily (TCA existing as a company is proof of that - but for more modern variants of the F-5, obviously). As far as I can tell, AGM-65s can be carried on either wing pylons - allowing up to 4x AGM-65s: a stupidly heavy and impractical load for a very small plane - but the F-16 can carry 4x AGM-88s in DCS so... They only seem to be the TV-guided AGM-65B versions (unsure about Laser or IR) - at least in the 80s. Conclusion What a proposal like the above has going for it over adding a late 90s/early 2000s F-5 with BVR and TGP and EW and all that jazz (which would rightly be a different module - namely an F-5EM, or an F-5E TIII, or F-5S) is that, despite the module subject being a -3, the additional capabilities were not outside the realms of F-5Es around the timeframe of this particular aircraft. 'F-5E Tiger II' is what it says 'on the box', after all. It's the same radar, the same engines, the same cockpit layout (except the Maverick specific items if using Mavericks) and the work required by ED is comparatively minor considering the work that went into module upgrades like the Ka-50 and A-10C. Is this, or some similar request, in high demand? There are many, many instances of this request dating back nearly 10 years. Would more people consider buying the F-5 if this were to become a reality? You tell me. Who'd buy the Remaster, or the module if they don't own the original, if it came with the option of quad AIM-9s, AGM-65Bs and IFR? Thanks for coming to my TED Talk...

Thanks for taking the time to reply NineLine, I know it must have been a slog to read. Glad to know - in terms of both the mod teams and older aircraft... So when will ED turn their attention to a Gloster Meteor and an Me-262?

@NineLine I've only just noticed you've moved this thread to 'Chit-Chat' (fair enough, it wasn't really F-35 specific anyway). I just wanted to clarify more clearly a couple points I guess I was trying to ask but doing a terrible job in doing so. I may have come across as combative or hostile, that's not the intent - I just genuinely want to understand. You stated elsewhere in another thread that if a third-party can demonstrate they can do the research and do the work (as the ED team have with the F-35 development) that ED would consider their offering. Does that mean that, for example, the Codename FLANKER team (I'm not affiliated with them at all, I just focus on the Su-30 because it's a personal favourite of mine and it ticks a lot of boxes that 'REDFOR' need to counter the increasingly capable BLUFOR module offerings) could approach you, with their mod, and essentially go "Hey, here's our Su-30 mod. We want to get this up to DCS module standard and we're using the same form of sources to inform development as you are for the F-35" and presto, Su-30 FF module in DCS? I know it's more complicated than that, but long and short of it? ED may not have lowered the standard of information it desires, but it has seemingly expanded what it considers reliable sources of information and will apparently defer to educated guesses where information isn't reliable based on gained understanding. If that same mentality is not now also afforded to other aircraft, isn't that a tad hypocritical? Previously, lack of documentation on implementation has been cited as a major reason (among others, such as certain national laws that prohibit ED from developing modern Russian aircraft) for a module not being a possibility. Yet that exact same lack of documentation/information is either already occurring, or will occur, regarding PVI workflow, capabilities and weapons/systems integration (not to mention stealth, EW and other characteristics) of the F-35 - and you have assured customers that the team will essentially make educated guesses using online sources, pilot interviews, airshow footage and computer software calculations for things they can't get info on. "The F-35 may not be 100% accurate, but it will be the most accurate representation of an F-35 in a commercial simulator" - or words to that effect. On the other end of the spectrum, for aircraft that don't have a lot of supporting documentation due to the age of the aircraft or the way the withdrawal from service of that aircraft was handled, does that mean that ED is going to be more lenient regarding sources for their development (aircraft such as the A-6M Zero, the Gloster Meteor or Messerschmidt Me-262, F-102/106, F-105, Vampire, Venom, EE Lightning, Mirage III, those sorts of planes)? High-fidelity mods, such as the A-4E and Su-30, might not have access to all the information - but they can certainly make as good, or an equal, approximation of their subject as ED can with their F-35. Imagine what they could accomplish if given the DCS SDK instead of just modding. I don't disagree that DCS needs to expand but there's a significant gap between mid-era Gen 4 and Gen 5, not to mention 'REDFOR' only has one aircraft that could be considered Gen 4, and it's a fart in the wind vs an F-35. If ED itself has its hands tied for whatever reason, surely it can guide/recruit others to do what it can't?

That's a fair assumption. However, there is a modding group that already have a fairly convincing approximation of a Su-30 that could possibly be made a third-party - assuming the rules for third-party modules are changed to allow for this kind of development.

If what you've just cited/written is even remotely true then yeah, I'd say the F-35 could go cold and hunt MiGs using passive sensors. Don't forget the F-35 uses data fusion, so if its datalinked I'm pretty sure (no sources, I just recall something about it - could be wrong) it doesn't even need to turn its own radar on to launch an AMRAAM. This is not unlike the MiG-29 and Su-27/33s ability to use their IRST to locate an engage targets without turning on their radar - only much, much more capable. It might be ridiculous if you're pitting an F-35 against Cold War-era aircraft, but that's pretty much the USAF vs most other non-modernised airforces in reality.

I can't answer your question, but what I will say is that if they don't at least utilise him as a resource, it would be a missed opportunity.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Doing a 5th Gen as the "first module to use this form of documentation" is a bit of an odd choice but I suppose it demonstrates what can be done. What I am saying though is: If you can do an F-35 based on airshows, pilot interviews and video footage then there's no reason why an F/A-18E/F, a Mitsubishi A-6M Zero or an F-16A ADV can't be done. Pandora's box might be opened, but I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. If we had the aircraft roster of War Thunder but in DCS (i.e. not 'competitive PvP only' on small/fictitious maps), I'd be okay with that. I think everyone would have at least one of their favourite aircraft in DCS then. There of course need to be ground rules around what can/can't be developed (no X-Wings, or TIE Fighters for example) but more diversity in aircraft and variants of aircraft isn't bad. Developing an F-35, but not allowing other aircraft to be simulated using the same or similar sources, is.

I'll get the important part out of the way first: Developing a 5th Gen aircraft using the less "traditionally cited" forms of documentation (i.e. public, open-source media) to develop a full-fidelity module can only be seen as a relaxation or "downgrade" of the documentation required (at least by ED) to develop a full-fidelity module for DCS. Does this mean that, seeing as ED is doing it with the F-35, other third-parties or even ED itself can now make modules that it has otherwise said that documentation does not exist/not complete enough to develop a module? For example, part of the reason a Su-30 module (yes, I'm aware there is a pretty-well-put-together mod available) or Su-27 module does not exist has previous been explained away as not having enough documentation to simulate the aircraft. Would ED allow other aircraft to be developed into modules for DCS, using the same form of sources cited as being used in the development of the F-35 module? There are many, MANY examples of Su-30s at airshows and technical demonstrations etc... And, given this, does this also yield some hope that other aircraft already in DCS can receive upgrades to their systems and/or weapons? A great first-use test-case would be the "new" F-5E module upgrade - you can't tell me there's "more documentation" available on the F-35 and its complete systems and weapons, than there is for putting an extra pair of AAMs, AGM-65s and an IFR probe on the F-5E...

It's okay, I think I'm having a stroke... (Not really, but I can't explain how my brain is not functioning right now...) Main cock DOWN and guarded is ON. LP pump switches to the LEFT is ON. I just seem to have forgotten that exact, very specific, detail overnight... It didn't even register watching Redkite's start up videos. I've just had a bit of a break the last couple hours and was trying it again. I've only been flying this plane, pretty much exclusively, for the last year... I need a good, long, refreshing holiday... Wow...

No, no switch assigned. I like to do all those manually. The only switches on that panel that have a HOTAS button assigned are the gear, flaps and throttle to idle - everything else is a manual click. This has literally started this morning. I flew a 1hr 20 minute mission yesterday and during start-up, I had to open/turn on the fuel pumps. It's only this morning that I've jumped in and noticed the pumps are on when they shouldn't be. Very odd. At a loss to explain it.

I do not have any mods installed. I have not noticed any updates to DCS overnight. I don't recall this being a thing literally yesterday when I flew a mission in the Mirage F1CE. The Main Cock and Fuel Pumps are already unguarded (main cock) and on when I start a mission. All I have to do to start the aircraft is turn on the battery, and depress the starter (once unguarded). This is not normal procedure, not according to the pre-start checklists or the start up videos - which I also went back and rewatched as I'm now second-guessing myself... As far as I remember, I've ALWAYS had to unguard and turn on these pumps myself (by pushing them to the RIGHT) as part of the start-up procedure. Or have I managed to tweak something unintentionally? (I have been looking at the model viewer to locate cockpit arguments - but the model viewer shows the main cock down and guarded, left and right fuel pumps are to the right and on...). A reload of the mission and a restart of DCS, and placing a new Mirage F1CE on an empty map has not fixed the issue - so now I'm second-guessing reality... Has this always been the case? The Mirage F1 manual shows the left console with fuel pump switches down (left) and guarded... What is going on here? What have I done? Am I losing my mind? And how do I fix it (the switches, not the losing my mind part)?