nairb121

Is it possible that there's a calibration issue, and DCS thinks your throttle setting is slightly higher than 0%? That might prevent it from accepting the cutoff bind. Maybe set a small deadzone (with throttle axis bind set to slider) and see if that helps?

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.

Back to the original topic - the following passage is from the -1 manual concerning handling characteristics with asymmetrical wing stores: It's interesting to note that the -1 actually only allows GBU-16 on the centerline pylon, not on the wings - presumably ED made the (reasonable) assumption that, since the inboard pylons were approved for Mk-83, the GBU-16 would also be usable. (Unless there's an additional source that I'm not aware of, which is very possible). I wonder if the issues you're observing are the reason the USAF -1 manual didn't allow them?

In high-level BFM, every degree counts... and at our current AOA limit (with guns loaded and balanced fuel), we can't even reach maximum lift, so our ITR and min radius are limited. Documentation suggests we should be able to reach roughly 28 (true) degrees AOA guns loaded... right now we're can't get past 21-22 without first lightening the nose of fuel or ammo, which can still only achieve about 26° with both empty. (Note that the in-cockpit AOA indicator does not show true degrees, but arbitrary units, typical of the time)

Yeah, it is a bit confusing. They're labeled by the engine they feed rather than their position. The layout looks like this: The odd shape and placement contribute to the different capacities of the left/right fuel systems.

There are not actually left/right internal tanks - there are no wing tanks, and the 3 fuselage tanks are in-line. Forward tank feeds the left engine; center and aft tanks feed the right engine. That said, draining the forward tank first can give you a little bit more AOA for those BFM engagements (as ours is incorrectly low at the moment)... procedure is as you described, right pump off and crossfeed on. Just keep a close eye on the fuel gauge if you don't want a double flameout.

The -1 manual only indicates Mk-82s as an acceptable loading on the MER, and M117 is only approved when carried singly, up to 5 total (one per pylon). That's not to say that other configurations were impossible or couldn't have been used by other operators, that's just what's in the USAF -1.

Saudi Arabian by the serial number.

It's not intended to be the hypothetical ultimate F-5E with all the possible factory options... Wags stated quite plainly that it is "the Swiss F-5E that were later operated as aggressors." Yes, it should also have the INS and digital radios, he acknowledged that as well – and if they can, they should definitely add them. But we have not been promised, and are not "owed" any more than what the Swiss used operationally. I'd love the extra capabilities too, but I'm not going to claim that we "should" have them.

I agree, the -34 has many images of how the radar should look, and at least updating the graphics, if not the inner workings, would go a long way towards improving its authenticity. As it stands now, the radar is far behind DCS's modeling standards.

I'm not sure I agree with some of the interpretations of what our F-5E is/isn't, or should/shouldn't be. Per Wags, it is a Swiss F-5E-3, of the type that would later be bought back by the USN. It is not an F-5N - this is a later stage of its life than it is intended to represent. The F-5N NATOPS is a valuable source for the systems that were retained after the USN's acquisition, but T.O. F-5E-1 is clearly ED's primary source for the F-5's system modeling. The 1984 version containing the F-5E-3 is the latest I've seen, but please correct me if there's a later revision. From the evidence I've seen, quad AIM-9 carriage is a plausible capability for the Swiss F-5E-3. It should also be equipped with INS and digital radios, as the aircraft it is intended to represent was. If the F-5N NATOPS is a usable source, then I believe the latter should be a possibility for the DCS F-5E. Quad sidewinders are up to ED - but employment would be pretty self-explanatory, so I doubt there would be much stopping them from adding them if they chose to. I am not aware of any -1 manual indicating Maverick carriage or AAR capability on an F-5E-3 similar to ours, but I would love to see one. While the baseline F-5E's fuel system was designed with AAR upgrades in mind - it is not a simple removable probe; there are still modifications to the airframe to add it, ones that "our" F-5E did not have. That's not to say I wouldn't like to have a more modular F-5E to better represent a wide variety of operators - it'd be great to have that option. But all F-5E's are not created equal, and we were never promised "one F-5E to rule them all."