LowRider88

I did all your steps with the exceptions of 1 and 2. For 1, I believe you are referring to the FFB rudders, whereas I am using the TPR ones, so I don't see FFB driver. I see the Rudder driver by another name. For 2 I did not do this as these were not in your original set of steps. I will try tonight. Are you able to confirm if you are using the TPR rudders or another Thrustmaster Rudder type? If you are not using TPR, I still believe the data.lua file maybe the issue. Also are you able to test the following? - Create a mission where you are starting in the air with either the F-5E or MiG-19. - At mission start, see if the plane kicks Rudder left. - If not, move the Rudder axis, and stop the mission, then restart it and check again. - Repeat above but logout of DCS first.

Thanks St4rgun. I had tried it before I replied, but no luck. In your instructions, you say remove driver, then remove software. Are these the same? If not, which software name are you referring to? I noticed the properties for me were the same as for you, in that I see the default windows first then the TPR version later. But there is no indication of how windows or DCS updated the calibration.

Thanks St4rgun, however this did not fix the issue described here. By your description of your own issue it does not sound the same, as the rudder does work for me, but only after I move it during the custom mission. It still kicks left every start of the mission. I believe the issue may be the data.lua file I mentioned.

There seems to be a problem with the Thrustmaster Pendular Rudder's default axis in DCS. After launching a custom mission in which the plane starts in the air, it will immediately kick left. Depending on the plane (e.g. most pronounced with F-5E), the plane will then go out of control. It will only regain control once the rudder is moved. Looking into the Axis controls for the rudder, it seems DCS defaults the rudder to the JOY_RZ axis, when the one it should use, and the one I assigned to it should be the JOY_Z axis. This will repeat every time the mission is restarted. I found there is a "default.lua" file which contains axis default values, and there are entries for other market rudders, but none for this TPR. I tried to add this to the Lua file on my own, but was not able to as the exact name of the entry seems to be required from the vendor. Without its own entry in this file, it seems the TPR defaults to the general setting, which has the Rudder assigned to the JOY_RZ Axis, and the Thrust to the JOY_Z Axis, which may be causing the kick left at start, since the throttle may typically be placed in the off or max setting, which may map on the Rudder as "left". This is currently causing a lot of crashes at the start of the mission.

I just updated today and it seems it is still broken. SPO doesn't work unless I flip IFF.

I read somewhere, I think on the Viggen forum that it has a structural limit of 12 G. But I agree with you randomTOTEN, and something on the Viggen FM needs to be limited. I flew against a rookie AI Viggen, and the thing was sustaining 9.9 Gs and maneuvering. Yet another UFO AI pilot. Anyone can try it. Try shooting down a Rookie Viggen in a MiG-19. It won't happen, even though they have roughly the same wingloading, but the 19 has more thrust to weight.

Thanks Aries101 for the video. So far the only success I have had was with rockets. I would approach at about 10000ft, fly nearby above the target, then invert and pull into it, with brakes and flaps out, diving nearly 70 degrees into it. But for bombing, not so much success. It may have been that at the time I was trying to use tables from the actual manual, but maybe there are inconsistencies with DCS. Try your method and watch the video. For my warthog, there is one mapping I am experimenting with. The F-5 manual says when pushing past the Aileron Spring Limiter, the pilot may need to use both hands. So for the right hand button on the warthog stick, I mapped the button for bypassing the limiter. This was for as much realism as possible, I.e to force me to take my left hand off the throttle and grab the stick with it too, since my right hand index finger is already occupied by the trigger.

Yes, I can read your diagram. Are you able to apply the manual's diagram to this one? If you did, you would see that your diagram now only has two lines. One for plain, and one for slot plus flaps. If you are at max AoA for slot plus flaps, e.g. 20 degrees, what happens when you pull up flaps? How do you draw the line down in your chart to the plain line? As I said there are only two lines in you diagram with respect to the F-5. So with plain, you will lose both lift and AoA, if you use UP in combat. Where then is you jerk pull snap shot? There is no nonsense about comparing the F-5E to the MiG-21 bis. The article compares the same. Just as the article says, the 5 wins because of the aerodynamics. Main reason for this is the aerodynamics. You are talking about induced drag, during the process of inducing it on one plane. I was talking about relative induced drag between the two planes when they are pulled already to the same high G. Again, as you said: "But even that additional drag might simply be not enough to create as much drag as a Mig can, especially when it stalls and then becomes a flying brick with the wings almost perpendicular to the airflow." Which one here has relatively less end result induced drag when they are doing the same G, and the other turns into the brick? These are your own words. You just misinterpreted mine. "Now, why does your comparsion not work? Easy. Completely different designs. It starts with different weights, engines, and goes over to different wing shapes, high lift devices or the lack of, all the way up to trying to match the performance of a completely different aircraft/flying outside the optimum performance regime of an aircraft." Again, the experts in the article didn't bother with your pedantic generalization here, and did the same comparison anyway, and learned the advantages of the F-5 lift devices which the 21 did not have, enough to put them into the MiG-29. You don't want the comparison? Then please present concrete data of how an F-5E flys without LERXs. I have already said the comparison is reasonable, because the 21 has both a wing loading and thrust to weight ratio advantage. And the Soviets also assume on paper the 21 would win for similar reasons, but it didn't in the end. Both of these two variables take into account many of the variables you needlessly introduced above to complicate the issue, with the exception of the LERXs in question. If you don't have empirical data for your argument, then unclench about the comparison. ""The violent vortices they produce help to keep the airflow on the wings, and so lower induced drag" I don't know man. The last part in your sentence seems pretty wrong to me. Even NASA would disagree here." You can insert the word relative before induced drag. If you want to be anal about it, then go ahead and send NASA my comment. Although I don't think they would care as much as you do about correcting it, especially when no one asked for it. "Without LERX there is less speed loss since 1) You do not get the vortices (read: drag) from them and 2) you will not be able to pull as much AoA (read: more AoA -> More lift -> more induced drag)." Yes, until you try to pull the same G as you could with the LERX, in which case you will stall and then have end result relative speed loss I was referring to, and as you referred to in your brick example. Again you are stuck on a technicality for an incorrect interpretation of my words, which was not what I was referring to but one you fail to let go of. "And no, you would not fly just like a 21. They have completely different designs. Just because you leave away the LERX, you will not fly like a 21. Again, this comparsion is just nonesense." Again, since you have no proof otherwise, where is your evidence that your assumption is more correct than mine? The Soviet Test pilots in the article found they flew the roughly same until they pulled to G limits, the same scenario I was referring to about pulling to G limits and comparing the relative speed loss. You should read more books like Clashes and Fighter Combat where they make similar comparisons and approximations and are not stifled by your pedantic and dogmatic restrictions. "Let me make it more clear. What if you compare the F-18 with the MiG-19? (Hint, because of the LERX the 18 can pull way more AoA and thus generate way more drag than the 19)" What's your point? You didn't clarify what the significance of this new comparison is. And again you are adding new variables into the beaten dead horse of an irrelevant offshoot of a topic this has become, just to prove you are right. You are just wasting my time by being needlessly detailed about an off tangent subject that was not part of my original request. I have already lost interest in my original experiment from your nitpicking.

Not that anyone may care at this point , but I did extend my mini experiment mentioned above. Beyond timing myself for how long it took for me to defeat the Trained AI 21 with a 5, I setup a purely AI battle where both planes were Trained. In this case the battle lasted way longer than the 4 minutes of the article. I had to leave the 21 at Trained and set the 5's AI to Ace to achieve the same under 4 min time I got, and the article had. Based on this I believe the F-5 AI FM is not optimized. I raised a bug report over a year ago believing the F-5 AI does not utilize its flaps, and I think this experiment illustrates this.

I was playing with keyboard as throttle for a long time, but recently got the warthog, so don't know much about the X. But since you just got it, you must have also played with keyboard or something else in the F-5 already, and so may know what controls you use for combat already. Maybe a best match is a combination of those controls you go to most in combat for convenience, and the ones you see on the virtual HOTAS, for some relative realism. Regarding combat, some say helis are the most difficult. But maybe due to a guns only environment and not the lack of targeting from your missiles. BTW, I admire you, I can't drop a bomb in the DCS F-5 to save my life.

I don't recall ever referencing stall speeds as fixed. And even if you are right and the industry is moving away from stall speeds now, this whole thread is about 70s era planes. The manual refers to stall speeds. And if we re going to be pedantic, the stall speeds in the manuals are not subjective. The are contextual. Of course they change under different conditions. But under similar or predictable conditions, like any other metric they can be used for relative comparison. And here, stalls speeds are available in manuals. "You can stall an aircraft at any speed, yes read that again, any speed - as long as you can generate sufficient G to reach and exceed critical AOA." I don't need to read that twice or even once. I was already aware of that from the manual diagram I cited, remember? By any speed, are you implying the F-5 can be stalled at 1.6 M? Wow, then why build an Su-27 when the Soviets could have just copied the F-5. Most likely if you tried to pull enough G here, the wings would break off, or the plane would through inertia continue its course until the attempt to pull Gs lowered the plane down to the manual' defined stall speed. "Air combat is seldom performed at 1 G. " No where did I imply this, "fixed", or cessnas. Not sure why you pulled this out of thin air. I think you are confusing relative with fixed. "You still don't seem to understand that the Mig in your example does not have a speed loss from stalling. It has a speed loss because its wing generates too much drag if its loaded up too much in a tight turn. " I don't think you understand that the stall is the extreme case of the condition you described. Whether just a tight turn, or a full on stall, that same speed loss, whether at or approaching the limit, in comparison with the F-5 with LERXs, with both turning the same g, the 21 has greater speed loss. So in comparison with a plane with no LERX, the F-5 has less speed loss. My original point. "Be sceptical as much as you want, but separating from a fight and/ or regaining energy is a part of BFM/ACM, as is turning." When was I skeptical of separation or energy management being outside of BFM/ACM? A more careful reading would show you I said chasing someone is hardly BFM/ACM. Chasing is not the same as the techniques in an Energy Fight. I will check out the doc you cited, Thanks for that. But not for the reason you specified, because you misunderstood me. "As for how much you gain, by FLAPS UP, well, for a separation or energy regain you normally want as quick acceleration as possible and me , I wouldn't leave the Flaps and Slats hanging out, producing induced drag which is exactly what you're trying to get rid off in order to maximize acceleration." Yes, but do you have verifiable evidence that you accelerate noticeably faster with enough utility, when compared to just unloading while in AUTO, I.e what ever gain you state is not a theoretical subjective feeling and is in fact better than the optimized optimization designed by the engineers for AUTO. If you have proof, I would Lear the technique. But until then, I see no loss in effectiveness from flying with AUTO on during all turn or energy fighting. i agree. This whole off topic tangent is exhausting, and detracted from the fun of the experiment I was proposing.

From my perspective, I feel you are mixing it up. Prior to us clarifying that not all the flap options in your diagram are feasibly available for the F-5 during combat or landing, you were implying max AoA would be higher with the flap UP setting. That is why I ask you what would happen if you are already at max AoA with flaps down, and then retract the flaps at that point. The point is with UP setting the max AoA is lower, based on the diagram from the manual and your diagram. So, no, in game retracting the flaps should not allow you to pull more in the F-5. The combination of extending both the slot and flap together to any degree (I.e autoflaps) still provides more AoA and lift than with both retracted. So greater pull snapshots with UP flaps is not possible. And as you concede, more flaps would instead be required for more maneuverability. "But even that additional drag might simply be not enough to create as much drag as a Mig can, especially when it stalls and then becomes a flying brick with the wings almost perpendicular to the airflow." Yes, that is exactly my point about the LERX. You both keep focusing on the rate of speed loss as a comparison between more or less AoA on the same LERX enabled plane, while my original comment is with reference to the LERXs preventing the F-5 from comparable speed loss of something like a MiG-21 with no LERX, due to said drag. And If we are going to be pedantic, the wings of either plane would never be almost perpendicular to the airflow. Neither plane is capable of pulling a cobra. No my understanding of LERX is not wrong. It is your interpretation of my words which is wrong. I was referring to the comparative speed loss: "But even that additional drag might simply be not enough to create as much drag as a Mig can, especially when it stalls and then becomes a flying brick with the wings almost perpendicular to the airflow." You say without LERX there is less speed loss. Well not if you tried to pull as much G as you could with LERX. If you did, you would be the flying brick that the 21 would be. I don't see why I can't compare a 21 as a plane with no LERX to the 5 as plane with LERX. How else will I illustrate the type of speed lost I was referring to? I have no pert data on an F-5 with no LERX. Using the 21 is even better since it performs worse in a turn but has better wing loading. The lack of comparative turn perf is mainly due to the lack of LERX. In the end I was originally referring the overall speed loss during combat, while you chose to dissect the comment and drill deep into the technical aspect of something I was not referring to.

You are literally trying to tell me that stall speed does not exist? Please look at Figure 6-1 in the manual. Those are not subjective, arbitrary numbers. So what proof do you have that stall speeds are irrelevant? Yes, critical AoA is associated to stall, but so is the stall speed. Air over the wings is dependent on airflow in general, not just plan form. When have you stalled in an F-5 and still had higher than stall speed? And why are you also focusing on the speed loss leading up to the stall, while I was referring the loss of speed resulting from stalling? Seems a bit off topic. Bottom line - in the same tightness of turn, the 21 will stall before the 5, and as a result will have loss of speed in comparison. Your suggested usage of the UP flaps in combat is completely different than what razo-r was describing, in which he said he could get additional pull, which I doubt, given the Figure 1-52, and his own diagram. I am skeptical I would use your technique in combat. The only time this might be useful would be perhaps: - to chase someone, which is hardly ACM/BFM. - in an energy fight, when I might want to extend away. But here, how much do you buy with the UP flaps than what AUTO provides after unloading? Or do you mean you want to regain energy quickly, from being close to a stall condition? If so, pulling up your flaps at that point is probably a bad idea. Maybe you can provide more practical usage examples, or cite actual increases in acceleration. Thanks LeCuvier for trying again. I am the same, the 21 always does vertical loops or scissors on me too. The only difference I have is, when I do hit it with guns, the 21 almost always smokes and takes less than a minute for the AI pilot to eject as a result. But Thanks for experimenting!

Your diagram was a good clarification, but not entirely helpful. Was that from the F-5E manual? From Figure 1-52 from the manual, I see no example where either UP or AUTO settings for the F-5E-3 allow you to select slots only, or flaps only. It is always both working in conjunction together at various degrees. So the extreme singular cases in your diagram are not met in the F-5, and any F-5 flap extension setting always produces more AoA and lift than with the UP setting. Your in game example is not the same as your diagram. Red on the landing index indicator with flaps down is not the same as the max AoA you are referring to with flaps up. In game, what would happen when you have red on the index and then put your flaps up? You say there are some cases where UP setting produces less lift but more AoA (which based on figure 1-52 seems to be untrue). That is like a sliding situation, where the plane is more like going into a slight tangent, but you try to point the nose even further for a better shot. But that doesn't seem worthwhile to me. You may get a sudden snapshot, but unless you have quick reflexes to switch back to auto, the loss of lift immediately causes you to lose any angle gains. Better to let the automation handle this. If you have examples of what conditions the UP works for tighter turns, perhaps you can clarify. Unless you prefer to keep it a secret. You are talking about the speed loss on a single plane with LERX, between pulling AoA and flying straight, whereas I am talking about two planes pulling AoA, one with LERX and the other without. The speed loss is the stalling in the 21 with no LERXs in the same turn, compared to a 5 with LERX. Once a 21 pulls a high G maneuver, and the instantaneous turn degrades, it is like a slow moving rock in the sky. That is the speed loss I am referring to. The 5 has less of this problem because of the LERXs. Some of your corrections are technically correct, but they distract from the original spirit of our experiment conversation. If I were to say there was a use for UP flaps settings it would be for trying to invoke a near stall condition, like when trying to pull off a WingOver, Hammerhead or J-Turn. Interesting. Something worth experimenting with.

I would like to propose another technique. People here can experiment for themselves to see if it works or if I am lying. I don't know if there is a technical term for it, so I will just call it Pitch Bouncing. I think we have all been there, low to the ground, perhaps at the end of a Split-S, when we realize, whoops, we are too close to the ground. The instinctive reaction is to pull the control column right into your chest. But the end result is that you cause too much induced drag and start skidding right into the ground. If you relax a bit on the pitching up, you can actually have a better chance at pulling up, and turn a bit more tightly. Taking this into account, when you are one the tail of an opponent but can't seem to get it into your cone of fire, you can do something similar. You can pull hard, then relax, pull hard, then relax. I have used this before and was able to close on an AI opponent which otherwise was always out of range. Technically, there may be some reason for this. Initial instantaneous turns before full on maneuvering are generally more tighter than a sustained turn, as induced drag builds up. But the instantaneous turn is just that, instantaneous, and temporary. Perhaps with Pitch Bouncing, you can insert some instantaneous turns into your regular sustained turns for a better overall turn performance. I believe he best way to execute this is to make the "bounces" small. Much like how people say doing a series of small, short hi and low yoyos is more effective than large, drawn out yoyos. You can pitch up just to the point before your cockpit frame starts shaking (induced drag limit), then relax the stick, and repeat. I believe this works in the Roll axis as well. People can try this all through out a rolling scissors, as I have done. It would be interesting to know if others are able to get similar results.

It has never happened to me before, as well as others. Does it happen to you when you are maneuvering at dogfighting speeds, I.e near corner speeds? For me if the F-5 is not fun it is more about the inaccuracy of its ammo.

Interesting. I have never required that myself, but it is worth experiementing to confirm. I currently don't agree that flaps decrease max AoA. If they did, why bother extending during a landing? You get max AoA and min stall speed during a landing, do you not? Unless you are referring to instantaneous turn rate. If so, the action here (after the instantaneous turn) seems to be to switch to auto from up, rather than the other way around. I disagree about LERX increasing speed loss. If so, why install them? The violent vortices they produce help to keep the airflow on the wings, and so lower induced drag. If you try to pull the same turn as the 5 in a 21 with more wing area, the 21 will stall first because it has more induced drag and greater speed loss.

Hi LeCuvier, Thanks very much for also trying out the scenario and providing your feedback. If you get a chance I would also like to know if you could defeat the 21 in a 5, when the 21 AI is set to Veteran, and if so how long it takes (I.e under 4 mins as in the article). As razo+r replied, Autoflaps is similar to Maneuvering flaps. There is a copy of the F-5E actual flight manual linked somewhere here in this forum, complete with OCR text searching. In the manual, you can see that both are a form of flap angle automation, but just with different angle settings. They control not only the standard plain trailing edge flaps, but also the leading edge flaps. Maneuvering flaps was for the earlier F-5E-1 version and Autoflaps is for the F-5E-3 version we currently have in DCS. razo+r is right that some DCS pilots like to switch between auto and up settings during a battle for better control. For me personally, I found I can dogfight entirely in auto, as during some AoA and speed regimes, the autoflaps will retract on their own, and I personally don't notice the difference. I only revert to Up position when I am taxiing to improve range and endurance, since I read some where that there could be some slight flutter of the autoflaps that could reduce efficiency when flying in a straight line. My findings are somewhat similar to yours. Since the F-5E has both lower thrust to weight and wing area than the MiG-21, it is hard for it to challenge the MiG high up, just as the article implied. The 5 does have LERXs, but these I believe mainly help when you have AoA, where they can prevent speed loss. But at high altitude, more of its speed may be required for level flight than high AOA, given the low thrust to weight ratio. There may not be enough air density up there for the LERXs to be useful. So the fight eventually trends lower and lower, where the 5 has the advantage. At high altitude, if the 21 gets behind you, or if you just want to save yourself some time, you can just go for a spiral dive down to the more advantageous lower altitude. The spiral helps prevent letting the 21 use its missiles more guns on you when diving. if you don't know what the spiral dive looks like, you can look up GVad's YouTube channel, in a recent video with him in a Mirage against an F-16 AI, the 16 does a spiral dive near the end of the video. Oh, but you don't seem to be new to the forum and may know already, so never mind Whenever I haven't flown the F-5 in a while I always also pull too many Gs, but the good tip you can read in this forum is that as soon as you see your canopy frame shaking, you are pulling too much and are increasing drag, bleeding speed, with out much more angle-off-tail gain. I noticed when down low that there may be very specific scenarios when the AI will crash. Against something as maneuverable as a MiG-29, it is when we are in a (1 circle) fight, about to make a head to head pass, I am just feet above the ground, the AI is higher than me, and then I pull upwards, towards the AI, during the head on pass. The AI will aggressively try to close the angle off nose, which forces it to dive beyond its ability to pull up. It happens so often it is no longer enjoyable, so even though pulling up in a situation like that may be desirable, I avoid it just to get a more meaningful kill from the AI. The MiG-21 AI seems to lawndart more frequently than the 29, just because it is less maneuverable, but still has such a high thrust to weight ratio. In earlier DCS versions, or when playing with 21 AI set to Rookie, I noticed the 21 always was still within reach. I am not sure if the AI was improved in recent versions, or if it is because of the trained AI setting that I use now, but I noticed recently that if I miss the 21 with both of my F-5 missiles, the 21 sometimes will climb and extend away from me and leave the fight. So annoying, but I like that more since it is realistic. In this case I have to hunt it with AWACS or GCi, hoping I don't loose all my fuel while keeping up. I also had trouble initially with stalling during a chase on a climbing 21. The trick I use now against the AI is to climb only enough to keep the 21 in sight, keep its angle off my nose below 90 degrees, and prevent it from getting enough separation to turn back into me. I.e, I am using lag pursuit in the climb. I usually reclaim the advantage when the 21 loops back down, in which case I switch to lead pursuit. More important is to close off your horizontal compass angle during these climbs, also to close it off from turning into you. Thanks again LeCuvier for trying out the experiment

GVad is also very good to. Very entertaining too. Highly recommended. He is actually the guy heading up Red Star Sims, who will eventually deliver the MiG-17, maybe next year. He has a lot of ACM/BFM tips from dogfighting against a real former Argentine fighter pilot. His earlier videos even go beyond DCS and cover flying in general. If I recall he is a read pilot with over 20 years experience. Just a few words of caution though: In the MIG-19 videos, it was assumed it was only an energy fighter and not a turn fighter. But that was because those videos were done before a recent FM update. Prior to the update, the 19 would lose speed in a turn far to easily, so at the time it was easy to assume the 19 could not turn. I hope he can redo these videos with the 19 once the maneuvering flaps are fixed, when it will have even more maneuverability, beyond the F-5. Also in one of his recent videos in a M2000 vs AI F-16, the 16 did what I believe was a spiral dive, but in the heat of battle he referred to it as a rolling scissors. It is understandable, but worth clarifying. He has earlier videos of the F-5 doing a real rolling scissors, though.

I am experiencing the same thing too. Is it that the sight calculation is incorrect, or is it because the 30mm rounds are too underpowered and slow?

Possibly, but missiles still fall to earth. They are also not asymmetric resulting from catastrophic structural failure, and still have their control surfaces. Well it certainly would not be what this is: I don't see a pilot surviving from a plane whose wings tore off from excessive speed and Gs. The act of inducing such a violent force on to the plane as to break the wings off would be very unlikely to be soft enough to let it continue to cruise in its original course. Sorry that seems too arcade-like to me. Then that's the question. Does the F-5 have power steering where the controls are light to the touch at all speed and load factors, or was it designed to give the pilot a heads up to when they may potentially destroy the plane. Seems like a design failure of engineers did not build any feedback at all as a precaution. Likewise

Yes, for F-5 with lifting body style fuselage, there is some lift. But that is more to decrease drag during high AoA, and not enough to maintain flight. If the wings broke off before take off, would it take off? Even if the plane reached transonic speed on the ground? I doubt that. So it would most likely fall out of the sky and tumble with no wings. Seems common sense to me. Especially when you add any moments resulting from the wings snapping off. Sure, but we are talking about the F-5, not the F-16. The hydraulics are a boost assist, so feedback from greater forces should be felt by the pilot. Agreed. Or there were none, and the plane just slipped on its own while increasing to speed, and coupled with that, nothing to prevent the player from exerting major Roll forces with their pinky with no feedback. Another possibly that was raised was that this could also be only a multiplier phenomenon. I agree.

Yep, know that about scissor already. That is why I questioned how some want to do them at transonic speeds. If both wings are off as shown in some of the screenshots here, they are gone near the root of the wing tip. How do you fly that with no ailerons and flaps or wing area? If the wings break asymmetrically, with the control surfaces missing it most likely will tumble. At any rate if it was transonic at break time, regardless of asymmetric breaking, it will still tumble with no wings. No one fights at Mach 2. You engage at Mach 2 then slow down and actually fight. IRL controls are assisted? So there is no feedback whatsoever? I find that hard to believe. Someone here said their gaming setup had issues while they were in afterburner and adjusted it, taking their attention off the action, noticed some slipping and then use daily their pinky to readjust the flight path but this caused the wing to rip off. You think in real life a fighter pilot can do that at speed and at G, with no feedback?

This is just another subjective comment. If it does in some cases, then yes, it is still relevant to consider the way in which the G was induced. But don't worry, I am also getting bored of challenging your corrections, especially if you don't cite the sources. I brought up 10 Gs as possibly killing people as a question initially, which no one answered until now. The whole point of asking that is to confirm whether someone can dogfight and do a scissors fight at 10Gs, which still seems highly unlikely if that level of G is transient, or can't be maintained. Yes, I agree, focus on the fuselage. And the wings. If this were my bug report, I would consider this the bug: - The plane should not be stable or flyable/controllable when the wings rip off. It should act the same way it does when it gets shot down and tumble. - There should be a DCS setting to switch between using force feedback and not using. When not using, the controls should not be as responsive, even if we push hard on our controls, so help simulate the difficulty in pulling that many Gs. No inadvertent pinky movements. - If it really is possible to invoke those forces at max g in the real F-5 with a pinky, then there is no bug. People should fight around corner speeds. - Read somewhere here that the accumulated damage may be from the multiplayer spawning, that should be investigated, as many of us don't see this in single player. - Read also G limit may be different at different speeds.

In the end it is just a game. Why are you losing it now? We all paid for the same module so what gives your ideals preference over the rest of us? I waited patiently and gratefully for over a year for a F-5 vapour request, without threatening ED with avoiding modules, or quoting Jesus. The problem is, not everyone here agrees with you two. Golo did a test and said he did not see the same: Others here say Dawgers reading of the manual is not the proper interpretation.