nairb121

Can you replicate this and post the video so we can see it from the affected plane's POV? There could be clues in the engine indicators. Nozzle should be controlled only by throttle position and exhaust gas temperature - unless the EGT is unstable at that speed for some reason (which I wouldn't rule out), the nozzle in theory shouldn't be moving. Observing the nozzle position indicator would confirm though. At the AOA shown in the video (about 5 units), auto flaps should always be up. There's also no indication of a flap shift (barber pole) by the flaps indicator, and visually they also appear to be up on the other planes in the formation.

I agree that the work we've seen recently has been refreshing - I'm still a bit worried though, the recent fixes so far are mostly low-hanging fruit (the cannon example being a simple lua change), while some of the bigger issues (e.g. AOA and wingtip asymmetry) haven't been addressed.

FWIW, I've never had much luck with the -34 bombing tables either, even being near perfectly on the numbers. I ended up just coming up with my own numbers instead. Granted, this might be total user error on my part. I can't imagine why the tables would be any different, physics is physics... unless the drag values, or reticle depression are wrong.

I believe Wags was stating their intent, while noting that certain aspects were missing. Stills below from "Tigris Helveticus" (Youtube link) on the original Swiss F-5 acquisition. They definitely had INS, and what appear to be dual radios (though not the modern digital interface). Edit: to be clear though, our F-5 is from the second batch in 1981. (Serial 81-0844/J-3085 from the cockpit)

Track attached - just a bit of pure guns-only PvP airquake. There is a definite difference - not as dramatic as I was thinking it'd be, but a good shot is definitely likely to land more hits. F-5 guns update test.trk

I've not tried it myself yet, but I have been told that it's much improved. Hopefully I'll get to see for myself tonight (and find out whether it'll make me hit more, or less!)

They might view it more as trim changing the stick force - that seems to be the way it's often framed IRL. Functionally it's the same, it's just a matter of perspective.

I don't think so, but I also don't think this would be considered a bug - it's performing as designed, but the implementation doesn't combine well with external FFB forces/effects. If there is a "bug", it's that the FFB implementation in the F-5E is unrealistic... but that's probably more of a wishlist item. Another general DCS wishlist item would be a spring center export, so external FFB software could center their own forces correctly. Until then, hardware trim is the only way IMO. I just set it to the same buttons I have bound in-game and it works well enough.

This is a reported bug.

Enabling "force feedback" in DCS settings causes it to ignore all in-game trim effect - in theory it should be moving your physical stick instead, for the same effect. This is correct behavior - if you hold the stick steady and push back against the changing stick forces, there will be no change in flight characteristics. (Only for aircraft with actual changes in stick position/force with trim, not FBW or similar.) If it's not moving your physical stick, then something may be wrong with your settings in the Moza software.

DCS doesn't export the stick center position, so currently the Moza software doesn't know what center point is being commanded in-game - its own center position is independent. The best we can do right now is try to match the in-game speed with Moza's hardware trim movement rate, so their centers more-or-less match. Hopefully this will change at some point in the future - this would be a very helpful export value for DCS to implement, with more mainstream FFB sticks being introduced after a long period without any.

Preset's attached. You will probably need to rebind the hardware trim buttons to fit your grip. {7f4a0c12-987c-4990-9f79-ec6d9dcfc42f}.preset

The bobweight loading is completely absent, the force output is just a (fairly weak) linear spring response regardless of speed/g-load. Force by g-load is absolutely critical for a hydromechanically-controlled aircraft, and without it FFB is borderline pointless. The Moza software lets me approximate it and add it on top of the game's forces, but it'd be better for it to be implemented in the game itself. What does work: 1. Trim centering (though supplemental hardware trim is also needed if using Integrated mode) 2. Aileron spring stop There are no vibration effects like you get from the Heatblur modules, but that's OK with me. Aircraft vibrations don't really come through the stick anyway... it's just a compromise since not everyone has a seat shaker or similar.

The F-5E's FFB support is rudimentary at best, and operating in Direct mode is not going to give a realistic response. I use mine in "integrated" mode, so I can augment the in-game FFB with telemetry-based FFB. I will attach my preset later if you'd like to try it.

It's a perfectly fair assessment - and in fact I'd argue that the F-5 is one of the last purpose-built dogfighters: as other 3rd gens pivoted toward BVR capability. it maintained a primary air-to-air role purely within visual range.