LowRider88

Your last sentence sounds as subjective as mine. If you don't know the number, how do quantity some vs few? Where are your sources for 12 G USAF? This is what I found, simple search only, below. 25 to over 40 Gs. But this is gradual acceleration in a rocket sled, and not in a fighter plane. Forces were front to back rather than top to bottom, like the centrifuge. 10 Gs front to back do different damages and have different effects to the body than top to bottom. In the fighter plane the acceleration of G is more than a gradual increase in the rocket sled. If it is not instadeath, g loc at 10 Gs could lead to death if the plane continues in the same maneuver that induced the g loc. If you can't recover you'll either crash or die from the g loc. You certainly can't shake off the g lock with a pinkie. 10 G s certainly does not allow a pilot to continue a 10 G scissor fight. Whatever the case, if I am wrong about dying at 10 G (whether instantly or due to g loc), you also agree the F-5 can't handle over 10Gs, which is the main point of this thread. The problem here is we have more realistic wing damage for overstress now, but people break them off with their pinkies because they don't use force feedback and don't get the resistance to tell them not to do that. That and they fly with afterburner all the time, and try to dogfight while transonic.

You provide a lot of anecdotes. Who are these guys? Can they provide better examples than a feeling? Are they using force feedback? Are they getting the sensations that trigger their precautions they get in real flight? Or are they also moving the stick with their pinkies while totally disengaged from the action, adjusting their gaming gear as you did? What are the high performance planes they have flown? 4th gen or this F-5? Have your fighter pilot friends pulled 10 Gs in real life? What's so amusingly about that. Sure, some break the rules. And then some die. Some may not die if they are lucky. I am not the one harping here, you are the one who has opened several bug reports for the same complaints.

Using your pinky to push the stick in afterburner is vastly more different than wrenching the stick at 7.33 G. If rest your arm on a scale, how much would it weight? How much would it be multiplied by your G factor? That is just getting your arm to move while you are straining from G breathing and trying to stay conscious. Add to that you are trying to move several tons of plane, multiplied by the G factor. That is not something you can move with a pinky.

Just to add to your point, real world pilots don't just read a sim manual, but go through thorough training and selection, to make sure they adhere to those regulations about sticking to imposed G limits and won't kill themselves by ignoring the rules. Those online gamers complaining about the wings breaking off should be happy they experience it in the sim and not in real life.

How's many bugs are you going to open for the same non-issue? Don't you think ED have bigger fish to fry? Why didn't you add this to the original thread? This is static test, to 1.5 * 7.33 G max, without additional aileron roll stress. In your inflight G reading, 1.5 * 7.33 is your G meter reading for the fuselage only and not what the wing is stressed to during 1.5 * 7.33, plus roll stress. ED, if you disregard physics and go with his logic, please also add code to kill the virtual pilot so we don't have crazy UFO flyers in the sim. No human can dogfight at 1.5 * 7.33 + Roll stress.

Bro, if you want to dog fight at 10 Gs, you need to go back to playing CoreBlunder or Star Wars. Please don't kill the sim for the rest of us who can never go back to arcade.

Hi Deka, any chance we can get AI PLAAF heli's, like the Z-19 and Z-10? http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com/p/helicopters-i.html

IcedVenom, me too! However, it is probably more easier for Razbam to build it since they implied they may, and already built the P. I hope Deka and still give us a unique Chinese plane instead

This was a static test done with jigs on the ground and not in the air. Because overstressing the plane in the air at 10 Gs will kill a pilot. The test stressed the wings to the first sign of weakness, then they stop. In the air, a silly pilot who overstressed the 1970s plane does not have fly by wire reflexes to correct this all the while blacking out and dying from 10Gs. As I mention d above, 10Gs on the G meter is fuselage overload. Add rolling and the wing is even higher.

Your charts here do not show 10G. Because 10 Gs will kill a pilot.

Not sure why you are requesting a more careful read. According to HWASP's post on the first page, the wings rip off at 10G. You post here does not address that.

So in total, apart from the 3 slight FM differences above (anyone know of others?), to add the additional Agressor / F-5E-1 version, ED could also reuse and touch up their exising AI pointly nose F-5E external model (already exists, with pointy nose, smaller LERXs, no ventral countermeasures bump, no RWR bumps on tail pipes) and reuse the F-5E-3 cockpit, but just blank out the RWR and countermeasures 3D and coding.

I think the difference in flight model related to the pointy vs shark nose is that the shark nose helped with directional stability during high AoA, maybe like how the ventral fin(s) on say a MiG-19 or F-16 do. Changing this for two different versions I assume wouldn't be too hard, maybe just a single FM variable that handles this range of directional stability. It would be quite fun to have this slight instability, and require us to use a bit of rudder more. By the sounds of it, I think the USAF, USN version may be the F-5E-1 version I had asked for previously. Truly hope we can get this version as well, since this is the one which saw the most actual real world air combat historically. If ED can consider this thread, they would be killing 2 requests with one stone. If this is the F-5E-1, apart from the pointy nose, and less AoA stability, I believe the smaller Original LERXs meant a few less degrees in max AoA angle. Seems to also be an easy change, FM variable wise. Also the thumb switches were the same but there were maneuvering flaps instead of the autoflaps. This also I believe is a slight change as well, as some of the flap angles are grouped slightly differently. Also should be an easy "if stantment" change.

Thanks so much Flappie!

How does it not? It says Roll G Entry should be less than Max G limit. If max G is about 7, roll G should be less than that. People here are rolling at 10 G. That is not minor aileron at all. The Roll G Entry Guideline acts as a warning. If you say you should not be afraid of the plane because it is a fighter, then you are just ignoring the rule. It's the same as a gun owner getting killed by his/her own guns for being laxed with safety guidelines. The fighter is still a fighter. The fighter pilot is still a fighter pilot (and perhaps a better one) if he is afraid, because that is being aware. Whether or not we are afraid of the plane doesn't change the rules of physics.

That's an interesting finding, Youda. Maybe the rolling with the elevator was due to the difference of how much wing was left on each side You are right, it should not be flyable like that.

You are right rossmum, it looks like all the in cockpit views in the vid are from a twin seat MiG-17. I missed that. However, I did see some images online which still suggests the radar sight glass should be darker: http://www.repulomuzeum.hu/Leltar/Leltarfotok/MIG-19lt.htm The cockpit images are near the bottom of the page. I understand this is an external display model with perhaps some weathered glass, but the radar sight definitely is not the same transparency as the gunsight, like what we currently have in DCS.

Thanks for your feedback roosmum. I am not sure I understand though. Which is the other switch? Do you have the link to the other thread? When you say it is fixed now, do you mean it was fixed after my post above (sorry not at home now and can't upgrade to find out)? If there is any dependency on another switch, it still doesn't make sense to me that clicking the SPO switch doesn't even flip the switch. If there is a dependency, the switch should be flippable but be inactive.

Yes!! I want all 3 versions!!!

Ah, okay, got your point, Sideburns

Those are fair point Fairey Gannet. hopefully we can get an S, along with an F-5E-1 or F-5A / C in th future

Good point. I Suppose I was comparing against MiG-19. The Gsh-30-1 is not much of a comparison point as the only MiG that I am aware that used it was the 29, which is a different generation. For the MiG-21 gun, the wiki details say they are alleged. Do you have the official rpm? Whatever the case, the original comment that the guns are slow firing is inaccurate.

For those who play offline against the AI, and are also annoyed with how the AI cheats and flys like a UFO at higher skill levels, this article has helped me understand which DCS AI skill level may be the most realistic. In the article the F-5 pilot was able to defeat the MiG-21 in under 4 minutes (the article claims defeating the 23 took longer than the 21, which was about 4 to 5 mins). When I set the AI Mig-21 skill level to Veteran and take it on with the F-5, the end result is that we wind up in a never ending series of rolling scissors or vertical loops, with the 21 always just slightly out of my cone of fire, until it runs out of fuel. When I set the AI MiG-21 skill level to Trained, it took me about 4 mins to kill it, but the first time I had it in my reticle for a tracking shot was around 3 mins. That first tracking time I suppose would equate to an eletrontic kill in the article. I suppose result will vary, as some other pilots may be better than me. I would be curious if anyone else in this scenario is able to kill the 21 in under 4 mins at Veteran level, or if they also go into an infinite loop until vapour time as well. BTW, I set the match up to begin around 5000ft. This discovery has improved my enjoyment of DCS. Previously, when flying an F-5 against a Veteran MiG-29, it was extremely frustrating. The infinite loop to vapour time in this case was the 29 always out out rating me in the horizontal turn, me aggressively forcing him in front with a scissors fight, only to have him climb out of range, go around and out rate me again. Taking a shot in this scenario is never possible. It always ends with the 29 ejecting, out of fuel, and me with all my ammo. With the 29's skill level at Trained, there is still some challenge, but in this case a firing shot is actually possible. So in summary, from my perspective, any AI skill level above trained is just UFO, unwinnable arcade. DCS should just remove those skill levels, or else change the name to Digitial Combat Game.

Yeah, this sure seems like a bug. But not sure if it is that the wings ripped off or whether: - the pilot should have died and the fuselage should have flown out of control once the wings ripped off - the plane should have resisted the attempt to maneuver at such a high speed due to inertia and less effectiveness of the flight controls at that speed. It was funny that you were able to roll with no ailerons. Isn't there a flyable mod out for it? Saw it on the YouTube channel of GVad, the guy who is leading Red Storm Sims, who is bringing the MiG-17.

Hi Sideburns, great tips. But just a clarification about the LERXs. The purpose of those were in fact meant to keep speed up during a turn. The violent vortexes they generate help to keep airflow stuck to the wing during high AoA and G. With out the LERXs is when the speed bleeds in a turn, like the MiG-21 plain delta. Also, the gun is actually fast firing, definitely not slow like the MiGs. You can hear the guns snarling, rather than single bursts, because the rate of fire is so high. But I agree with you about your tracking comment. DCS I feel did not model the accuracy of the F-5's bullet speed well. I think there was some custom fix available from end users here, but this seems to get overwritten after every update (could be wrong, but seems like it).