Auditor

Apparently that was also a design problem in the original. The answer is the Radar gunsight. If you follow proper procedures and lined up the pipper with the target before firing while they are locked in a pure pursuit, then your target isn't where the enemy aircraft is, it's where the pipper is pointing. A little bit of practice, and you won't need to look at the enemy aircraft at all to know where they're at, because you can follow the HUD symbology and find them every time.

Does clearing all my inputs and rebinding it fix it? I've had a rebind since a couple updates ago, and I haven't come across this problem yet (knock on wood).

Can confirm, mod works just fine and is basically required if you seriously fly the F-5E. still no official fix in sight, but this at least mitigates it somewhat.

Can confirm, sometimes the P5 tone will immediately cut out, in particular if it gets a lock and then loses it again rapidly.

Seconding this, flight model concerns take serious priority when it comes to bug fixes, in my opinion. 5% may not be enough to notice on maneuvers but it's still a significant factor.

Any updates to this? It's been a long time. Then again, I feel that way about a couple other things on the F-5E. :music_whistling:

I have to ask, are the C101's air to air missiles only rear aspect simply because of coding limitations? Will this be addressed in a future update to the C101? It appears as if other modules have addressed this problem to some extent. The F-5E, for instance, has one rear-aspect IR missile and one all aspect missile, and can mix and match their target acquisition. The Mig-21 has several rear-aspect only IR missiles and one all-aspect IR missiles.

This is going to be anecdotal, but I spent about an hour doing pattern laps in the A and the S just to see if I noticed anything different, and I haven't. It's still landing the same way for me. Like Airhunter said above, except I typically come in a little nose-high and then gently settle over the runway before flaring at about 280-300kph. I prefer keeping it nose-up because that allows me to come in with a little bit of power (never bring one of these in on idle power). On touchdown, I keep nose-high for as long as I'm able to before gently setting the nosegear down and deploying the chute. This is just my strategy and I treat it a little more carefully than I need to, but that's what works for me. I got the idea on treating it this way from watching real-life 29A videos where they basically do exactly that and maintain nose-up attitude for a short distance down the runway. I've noticed in DCS you have to maintain nose-up probably longer than you would IRL to slow down similar distances, but that's kind of a minor thing.

I'm really looking forward to this one. It will go well with the A4 on ops with my friends.

It would be really helpful in the Cold War server because the F-5 radar, for instance, is something that doesn't saturate the SPO-10 until very, very close to the Mig. Good for detecting gunsight radar locks. Most Search/track radars from SAMs and the like would also benefit from this system, as well. On modern fighters, not so much; theoretically modern pulse doppler radars like in the F/A-18C may not even be on the correct band to flash the lights. That's something that may need more research. However, in a lock you should be lit up enough to at least know which quadrant the lock is coming from. Which is really the problem all along. Can I take a moment to point out this exchange? Because this is really is the forum experience in a nutshell: User 1: Are we going to get a bugfix for this problem that has been in the tracker for a while now? User 2: Don't you know that IRL this is how it works and you're being an entitled prick for asking about it? I have an anecdote about something that happened somewhere and I intend to tell you about it. User 1: it's acknowledged and documented that this is how it works. Here's the documentation and the discussion we had previously about it. Now, show us where it doesn't behave this way. User 2: Lol look at this nerd caring about things. I don't care about anything and it's your job to factcheck my anecdotes and hearsay. This doesn't matter anyway because I'm too cool for this conversation despite making the active choice to click the topic and get involved in it. Really makes you think! I think that four post exchange should be pinned to the top of general discussion as a hint at what you can expect to see.

If we're hypothetically going the EM route, it's good to note that these variants can carry Python, Derby, and Sidewinder missiles. All extremely capable missiles, and the Derby is a BVR-capable active radar missile based off of the Python. Which it can carry on all pylons. Source: https://defense-update.com/20141023_f5tiger.html Yeah, but I'm not really convinced the NS430 is going to see integration in future airframes. Which is a shame, really.

What I would like more, and this is something that goes for all planes, really: is native NS430 integration. No more popups, just let users use the built-in nav and comm radios of the GNS430. Make those actually do something instead of just being numbers that don't do anything. Then you can put it where the radio stack currently is. But I have this complaint with a lot of planes. We have the tools already to add a lot of value to many different planes with a device that was made for the task, but no one does it. A helicopter and a trainer jet are the only two that get that privilege. If any resources were spent on development, I would like that and more quality of life improvements than more variants, overall. Especially if there is real-life evidence of these tools being used in the past. I think that provides more value for us, as consumers, than making variant after variant. Unless, and here's the exception: there's a push to make a 'baseline' set of aircraft for a specific timeframe (IE: Sometime in the future there's a Vietnam map released and some aircraft are given their Vietnam variants). Because right now what we have is kind of scattershot in terms of timeframe, and making time-specific missions depends mostly on restricting the loadout. But that's just my two cents.

I'll give them credit, there is one; exactly one use case of it being a redfor plane. Which is probably more precedence than some of the other traditional redfor staples on these servers

mostly this. I think redfor guys are just happy that their side in all of the major servers finally have a clicky plane that works

I know you probably feel pretty confident or made it in jest on some level, but the truth is; The notching isn't meant for you. it's meant for the missile. At some point that Phoenix goes pitbull, and that's a very gracious window of opportunity the enemy gets to jump into the notch and stay there until the threat goes away. If you're as confident with the pulse mode as you claim to be; you should really not bother with Phoenix's at all and instead pack a full sparrow loadout, since, in your words, you'll never lose them in the RIO seat.

The refueling probe is probably the thing I would want the most, but at the same time it's still probably one of the most modern aircraft we're going to get. I've been told that it will also be our first glass cockpit aircraft if it can beat the Tucano.

Seconding this. +1 crisp factory-fresh RU pit. EDIT: would like to point out, though irrelevant, the OP's image is a BisD. With a nice new radio stack, navigation radio, and an NS430 mounted at the center. Best of all: AoA indicator right next to the HUD so you can look at it without losing target.

Hold left click while using the mousewheel to turn it clockwise.

Yep. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=231028

Definitely not just for the Redfor Aspect but also for the sophistication of this aircraft. I don't think a lot of people realize this, but this could be the most advanced up-to-date aircraft in DCS on release. That is exciting to me.

Recent OB, as well. Try it at night.

Ohhh yeah, that's what I want to see. Oof, there's a blast from the past that I wasn't expecting to see here.

They('they' refers to ED) changed the profile formatting of the config files. Other aircraft were unbound completely to force the player to re-bind with the current configuration (Like the Hornet) What you have to do now is either set everything to default and re-bind or delete your old config file and make a new one. You can't use the older config and I don't think overwriting it with new configs works either (Though you can try, there's no harm since the file is already messed up). Either ways, even though it's registering the same button presses, the changes in config file formatting mean that it's interpreting your presses differently and have to be re-bound.

Going to +1 this thread, I was noticing this in single player the other day. Several tests showed that it could shrug off missile hits like a champ if they were taken on either of the wings. So now they're as durable as AI fishbeds :music_whistling:

What is happening, and this is part of the lighting bug that I discussed earlier: The landing lights are actually shining onto the inside of the model. When you flip the switch to turn on the lights, the lights don't really come on or go off, they just rotate to face outward. You can see this if you turn on the landing lights at night, and then turn them back off again; the yellow glow is still projecting onto the inside of the plane's model. Same thing happens when you start cold and dark: the lights aren't off, because as far as I can tell they never turn off. They are just rotated to where the player can't see them immediately. Things like this are exactly why I'm pretty frustrated with people demanding that we quit talking about these problems. I'm happy with the attention the Fishbed has received prior to MAC (it's about time), but the work is far from over.