Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

no, there is no balancing here. the intrinsic value of the exercise is all about taking the f-5e3 as it is to fight the mig-21bis as it is. the point is to explore and learn ways to using what you have to your advantage.

 

what you're pushing is just a poorly veiled power grab for the benefit of those who can only feel validated by a number on the scoreboard, those who dont actually give a damn about flying and dont care to appreciate that the entire process of taking off, flying to, returning, landing, and rearming are all as much part of the fight as the splash itself.

 

for that i dont support your notion that more missiles a better plane makes.

  • Like 1
  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

TIGER 3 is not F-5E3 scroll down wikipedia you found the Reasons.

F-5E have only 2 Sidewinder, DCS stands for Simulation not add just for fun anything that never happen real live.

Even the Pylon is not made for hold sidewinder and no wiring for launch it, the weapons arm is not designed in the cockpit and so on....

Once you have tasted Flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your Eyes turned Skyward.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

9./JG27

Posted
Nice post Tirak. And the AGM-65? does the F-5E-3 use them?

 

Some do, some don't. BST has said repeatedly if anyone could find them accurate pictures of the display they'd look into including them. So far, no one has.

Posted

The F-5E is a cheap light-weight fighter. It is not an air-superiority PvP machine. If you fly the Tiger like F-15C and Su-27, you will more than likely fail. You should only use sneak attacks where you and your wingmen (yes you will need backup) is at an advantage. Even against Mig21s. Ambushing targets that are already buisy attacking other targets than you. It is difficult, but that is the reality and probably very true to real life. No need for more missiles as it is 1: unrealistic, 2: creates more drag. 3: If you really need four missiles, work on your energy management, aim and tactics instead.

Posted
The F-5 itself performs ok Texac' date=' but having such a limited number of missiles even if you score kills with both means a lot of landing and re-arming.[/quote']

 

 

The F-5E was a Light Attack Craft, Not a Missile Truck.

 

if you are Taking off, Lobbing Aim-9Ps, turning around, making a run to nearest Allied Base, landing, Re-Arm/Re-Fuel, and Repeating that process,

 

Then you or the Mission Designer is Incorrectly using the F-5E in the Mission.

 

If you Want a Missile Truck, Fly the F-15.

 

The DCS: F-5E-3 is Modeled to Real Life Capabilities,

Accuracy and Authenticity are two key elements of DCS Modules.

 

You will not see Unrealistic Upgrade Mods integrated by the Development teams.

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2),

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9)

3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs

Posted

Four AIM-9's hardly makes something a missile truck, and hardly comparable at all to an F-15 or Su-27.

 

How is adding another version that can carry more weapons unrealistic?

 

"If you really need four missiles, work on your energy management, aim and tactics instead."

 

Don't need them, but I would like them.

Posted

I like the F-5 a lot as is... but it would be nice to have the refuel probe. The Canadian AF had the probe added for their version back in the day.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

i7 10700K OC 5.1GHZ / 500GB SSD & 1TB M:2 & 4TB HDD / MSI Gaming MB / GTX 1080 / 32GB RAM / Win 10 / TrackIR 4 Pro / CH Pedals / TM Warthog

Posted
A new refueling probe would require a panel in the cockpit. That's a remodel and a retexture of the interior. That's coding to hook it up and make it work to. It also means remodeling the exterior, changing the flight model, and the bugsmashing required for that too. It's also a retexture, and it's a bit of a pain in the ass given the geometry but again possible. But, now you've got to code systems, and while the thing to make it work might be simple, the damage model won't be. Coding damage has been a huge stumbling block for a lot of modules. If that probe takes a hit, does it blow the whole plane up? Well no but it'll stop working. That's lines of code right there. But if it gets hit again, then what? Can it be hit at all? Does it have a damage state? Does that damage state cause a particle or flame effect? Do i need to create a damaged texture map for holes or does the whole thing fly off like a wing? What are the break points?

 

We're talking a lot of work, for no real gain. Who actually uses aerial refueling? A few folks running super sim missions and the occasional guy who does it just because it's cool, but most of the sim population does it once or twice, then never does it again because it's a pain in the ass.

 

On the other side, adding in two sidewinder slots is not out of the realm of possibility. That just uses already established hardpoint code, piece of cake. Minor coding to make it so flipping up the hardpoint switch arms the missile. Bing, bang done. There's an upgrade kit specifically for that and it doesn't require a whole lot of work. That's an upgrade worth doing, but not the refueling probe.

 

TL:DR: Refueling probe is lots of work, don't bother. Upgrade kit for 2 more sidewinders should be included.

 

While I agree we shouldn't change anything for the F-5E. I do disagree with the statement that no one uses air to air refueling. We do it all the time. In fact nothing makes a mission feel more realistic than the need to refuel on the way out and and back home from the target:D

 

I am enjoying the F-5 as is though! It is a fun change of pace to use such a basic fighter design and I definitely want to keep it as is and realistic.

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D | ASUS Crosshair Hero X670E | 64GB G Skill Trident Z DDR5 6000 | Nvidia RTX 4090 FE| Samsung EVO Plus 6 TB M.2 PCIe SSDs | TM Hornet Stick/WinWing Hornet Throttle and MIP | VPForce Rhino FFB Base | TM TPR Rudder Pedals W/Damper | Varjo Aero/Pimax Crystal | NeoEngress NACES Seat

VFA-25 Fist of the Fleet

Carrier Strike Group One(CSG-1) Discord
 

Posted
A new refueling probe would require a panel in the cockpit. That's a remodel and a retexture of the interior. That's coding to hook it up and make it work to. It also means remodeling the exterior, changing the flight model, and the bugsmashing required for that too. It's also a retexture, and it's a bit of a pain in the ass given the geometry but again possible. But, now you've got to code systems, and while the thing to make it work might be simple, the damage model won't be. Coding damage has been a huge stumbling block for a lot of modules. If that probe takes a hit, does it blow the whole plane up? Well no but it'll stop working. That's lines of code right there. But if it gets hit again, then what? Can it be hit at all? Does it have a damage state? Does that damage state cause a particle or flame effect? Do i need to create a damaged texture map for holes or does the whole thing fly off like a wing? What are the break points?

 

We're talking a lot of work, for no real gain. Who actually uses aerial refueling? A few folks running super sim missions and the occasional guy who does it just because it's cool, but most of the sim population does it once or twice, then never does it again because it's a pain in the ass.

 

On the other side, adding in two sidewinder slots is not out of the realm of possibility. That just uses already established hardpoint code, piece of cake. Minor coding to make it so flipping up the hardpoint switch arms the missile. Bing, bang done. There's an upgrade kit specifically for that and it doesn't require a whole lot of work. That's an upgrade worth doing, but not the refueling probe.

 

TL:DR: Refueling probe is lots of work, don't bother. Upgrade kit for 2 more sidewinders should be included.

 

"who actually uses aerial refueling?" you would be surprised, look on the TFP, VA and Dedicated flight and also the reason fewer people do it is because A they either lack the skill, want a fuller fidelity aircraft or simply are not interested, Currently the Mirage and the A-10 are the only non fc3 aircraft that can air to air refuel, someone may not want to fly the mirage, the more aircraft with probes that get added the more the aerial refuelling will get used more so then it already is. I love aerial refuelling and I only fly with a joystick and no rudder or track IR as many people do the same already so the "super sim missions" is a less valid point.

 

As for the code I get what you mean and I suppose it may be worth adding it as a separate version as that would make more sense because rearm menus are hard to deal with anyway and i think dcs would not support such a system. For texturing i've seen single man operations texture fairly quickly depending on available time and jobs ect. The damage should just stay the same unless there is a bug because lets be honest it would not be a smart idea trying to refuel from another aircraft with a wingtip missing and an engine out.

 

As for the AGM 65 that would also mean additional code and texturing and the likely hood of the E-3 version even using them is low as there is not a lot of information around however the fact that they would be willing to try it shows their passion (as does making the module in the first placeP.

Posted (edited)

sarcasm mode on...

 

While we're at it why not give F-5 Python 4 and Derby missiles?

 

and the better radar?

 

sarcasm mode off...

 

F-5EM-Python-4-1.jpg

Edited by ViFF

IAF.ViFF

 

http://www.preflight.us

Israel's Combat Flight Sim Community Website

Posted
Four AIM-9's hardly makes something a missile truck, and hardly comparable at all to an F-15 or Su-27.

 

How is adding another version that can carry more weapons unrealistic?

 

"If you really need four missiles, work on your energy management, aim and tactics instead."

 

Don't need them, but I would like them.

 

The Capability for AIM-9s on the outter pylons wasn't possible until the F/G+ or xM Models.

 

Which have different Engines, Radars, Avionics, and Cockpits.. They are Entirely Different from teh -E and -E3, it would not be a "simple creation of a -EM" Variant in the LUA Files to fly w/ 2 more Missiles.

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2),

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9)

3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs

Posted
sarcasm mode on...

 

While we're at it why not give F-5 Python 4 and Derby missiles?

 

and the better radar?

 

sarcasm mode off...

 

F-5EM-Python-4-1.jpg

 

That's an F-5EM, it's an Entirely Different plane outside of a Visual Similarity with the F-5E that it was before it was retro-fitted and upgraded.

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2),

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9)

3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs

Posted

The plane fine the way it is.

There are 2 categories of fighter pilots: those who have performed, and those who someday will perform, a magnificent defensive break turn toward a bug on the canopy. Robert Shaw

Posted (edited)

I feel like they should add an F5 with a refueling probe or 2 seats in some way, I feel like multi crew would be phenomenal on this air frame, Yes its a lot of work but you could have to single seat fighters tangling with migs and 2 seaters loitering and doing longer range cas etc, just a though. :)

 

Obviously this would be a huge undertaking but at least it could be the first two seat aircraft with air to air refuelling capabilities.

Edited by zcrazyx
  • Like 1
Posted
The F-5E was a Light Attack Craft, Not a Missile Truck.

 

if you are Taking off, Lobbing Aim-9Ps, turning around, making a run to nearest Allied Base, landing, Re-Arm/Re-Fuel, and Repeating that process,

 

Then you or the Mission Designer is Incorrectly using the F-5E in the Mission.

 

If you Want a Missile Truck, Fly the F-15.

 

The DCS: F-5E-3 is Modeled to Real Life Capabilities,

Accuracy and Authenticity are two key elements of DCS Modules.

 

You will not see Unrealistic Upgrade Mods integrated by the Development teams.

 

1. 4 missiles isn't a missile truck. Fighters since the F-100 had 4 missile capability, this is not a missile boat.

 

2. The F-5E-3 has been upgraded by many different operators from many different companies. Many of these upgrade kits are "bolt on". While I agree, doing something like an F-5ES is ridiculous, modeling LAU-100(M) and LAU-101(M) Launcher Rails is not the same as altering the aircraft.

 

3. The LAU-100(M) and LAU-101(M) Launcher Rails exist, and are an upgrade for F-5s, it's not unrealistic to ask for it, just because you have a preference it is not modeled this way, does not make it unrealistic.

Posted
Honestly I'm mainly wanting ED to add arrester wire systems so that we can simulate emergency landings better instead of hitting the ground and doing a barrel role into a nearby field if your a bad pilot.

 

The only F5s that i've seen with them are 2 seaters.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f5/f5_05.jpg

 

The Saudi F-5Es have the ability to use the AGM-65 even their Single seaters.

 

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=109103&d=1136187634

 

Pay attention to the AGM-65 in the foreground.

 

And the Saudi F-5Es are non upgraded.

 

There are also other examples of F-5Es being AGM-65 capable.

 

And apparently some Swiss F-5s were given the AGM-65 capable display in the 90s to replace the Hawker hunter in the air-ground role.

 

Some of the Taiwanese F-5Es also had AGM-65 capability as did some of the Jordanian F-5Es.

 

And there are likely some other users as well but these are some of the ones who had F-5Es with that Capability.

 

Most likely no all of their F-5Es where AGM-65 capable (except for maby Saudi Arabia as their F-5Es were Mainly air-ground)

 

But a number of them were (the ones assigned to air-ground specialised units probably)

Posted (edited)
The Saudi F-5Es have the ability to use the AGM-65 even their Single seaters.

 

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=109103&d=1136187634

 

Pay attention to the AGM-65 in the foreground.

 

And the Saudi F-5Es are non upgraded.

 

There are also other examples of F-5Es being AGM-65 capable.

 

And apparently some Swiss F-5s were given the AGM-65 capable display in the 90s to replace the Hawker hunter in the air-ground role.

 

Some of the Taiwanese F-5Es also had AGM-65 capability as did some of the Jordanian F-5Es.

 

And there are likely some other users as well but these are some of the ones who had F-5Es with that Capability.

 

Most likely no all of their F-5Es where AGM-65 capable (except for maby Saudi Arabia as their F-5Es were Mainly air-ground)

 

But a number of them were (the ones assigned to air-ground specialised units probably)

 

If you can find cockpit images or even documents proving the AGM 65 capabilities then you should forward them to BST.

 

Also that F5 has a refuelling probe so one would assume that it is indeed modified and not a Tiger 2.

 

Upon further reading into this specific aircraft it is listed on this website as an F5-E/F, now considering that F is a two seater and the only actual E/F that is listed is a single Swiss airforce F5e with f wings.

 

http://s9.invisionfree.com/21c/ar/t5671.htm

Edited by zcrazyx
Posted
1. 4 missiles isn't a missile truck. Fighters since the F-100 had 4 missile capability, this is not a missile boat.

 

2. The F-5E-3 has been upgraded by many different operators from many different companies. Many of these upgrade kits are "bolt on". While I agree, doing something like an F-5ES is ridiculous, modeling LAU-100(M) and LAU-101(M) Launcher Rails is not the same as altering the aircraft.

 

3. The LAU-100(M) and LAU-101(M) Launcher Rails exist, and are an upgrade for F-5s, it's not unrealistic to ask for it, just because you have a preference it is not modeled this way, does not make it unrealistic.

 

Sure but is it known that the LAU-100 and LAU 101 packs were easy bolt ons that did not require any other significant modification.

 

And also do you know what nations operate F-5Es with those packs? (without also having major modification on their F-5s in the form of new cockpit / radar etc)

Posted (edited)
If you can find cockpit images or even documents proving the AGM 65 capabilities then you should forward them to BST.

 

I have looked but been unable to find anything on my searches on the internet.

 

Would probably be easier for a national of one of the nations that did so since they would know the language and probably have a easier idea finding it.

 

Since i can only really search on English or Swedish Forums

(and the likelyhood of finding anything on the subject on a Swedish forum is miniscule ^^)

 

So someone from one of the nations in question and especially someone interested in aviations that either has or knows somebody with past airforce experience or who knows of suitable national aviation forums (were people with information of a nations airforce etc often lurk) would have a much better chance at finding something.

 

 

The Fact of the F-5E being able to use the AGM-65 is not in question its just a matter of what radar / Display the aircraft in question was equipped with.

 

The later F-5Es were Equipped with the APQ-159 radar.

(the radar the F-5E that is modeled is equipped with)

 

With that Radar you had 4 different Displays available.

 

Those different Radar/Display Combos were named as following.

 

APQ-159-1,APQ-159-2,APQ-159-3 and APQ-159-4.

 

the APQ-159-1 and APQ-159-2 were AGM-65 capable since the Radar Display had a Television mode and could be linked to the AGM-65.

 

the APQ-159-1 being for the single Seat F-5E with the APQ-159-2 was for the F-5F (with dual Display / controls one for the pilot and one for the rear-seater)

 

The APQ-159-3 (that we have atm) was for the F-5E and was not AGM-65 capable (as it missed the television mode) and the APQ-159-4 was two seater variant of the 3 (also lacking the Television mode).

 

And also the Fact that the TV capable ones were the 1/2 makes clear that they were available and were a customer option from the start.

(from when the APQ-159 was first available)

 

It was simply a question of if the customer wanted the ability or not (if they needed it)

since was no need to have the TV mode and the additional wiring (that most likely added to the cost as it was additional complexity)

 

if you did not have any AGM-65s or did not intend to use the F-5E for the strike role.

Edited by mattebubben
Posted (edited)

The F-5E-3 was not wired for IRM on Pylons 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6.

 

Even with the Launchers, they would need to be Upgraded to Use them, Enter F-5E Tiger III, and Export Packages/Upgrades, Modernization Packages etc.

 

No 4 Missiles doesn't make it a missile truck, But that was the Aircraft's Capabilities for the Version Modeled.

Edited by SkateZilla

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2),

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9)

3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs

Posted (edited)
I have looked but been unable to find anything on my searches on the internet.

 

Would probably be easier for a national of one of the nations that did so since they would know the language and probably have a easier idea finding it.

 

Since i can only really search on English or Swedish Forums

(and the likelyhood of finding anything on the subject on a Swedish forum is miniscule ^^)

 

So someone from one of the nations in question and especially someone interested in aviations that either has or knows somebody with past airforce experience or who knows of suitable national aviation forums (were people with information of a nations airforce etc often lurk) would have a much better chance at finding something.

 

Upon further reading into this specific aircraft it is listed on this website as an F5-E/F, now considering that F is a two seater and the only actual E/F that is listed is a single Swiss airforce F5e with f wings.

 

So assuming they're also selling Fs that would explain why there are AGM 65s nearby however that does not explain why there is an E listed with a Probe.

http://s9.invisionfree.com/21c/ar/t5671.htm

 

However this would mean yet another country purchased an F5E with a probe as it was optional furthering reasons to add a probe.

Edited by zcrazyx
Posted (edited)
Upon further reading into this specific aircraft it is listed on this website as an F5-E/F, now considering that F is a two seater and the only actual E/F that is listed is a single Swiss airforce F5e with f wings.

 

So assuming they're also selling Fs that would explain why there are AGM 65s nearby however that does not explain why there is an E listed with a Probe.

http://s9.invisionfree.com/21c/ar/t5671.htm

 

However this would mean yet another country purchased an F5E with a probe as it was optional furthering reasons to add a probe.

 

 

The Saudi F-5Es (yes single seaters) had the ability to use the AGM-65.

 

And yes Saudi F-5Es had the Refuling Probe as standard.

 

 

And also about the E/F...

 

That simply means that they have both F-5E and F-5Fs.

 

Just like you would say F-16C/D or F-15C/D.

 

Its not related to the Swiss F-5E/F Hybrid.

 

And also that picture is not related to the website you linked (it was taken earlier)

they just use it.

 

It was taken at a Display of the Capabilities of the F-5E.

Edited by mattebubben
Posted
The Saudi F-5Es (yes single seaters) had the ability to use the AGM-65.

 

And yes Saudi F-5Es had the Refuling Probe as standard.

 

We need solid proof though and given the fact that thses F5s were sold through a classified ad, i would highly doubt we'll get to see cockpit images.

 

There for it would be impossible to add the AGM unless they did it MIG 21 style and locked the ground up with radar and the missile would guide from that but i would think that's unrealistic.

 

As for the refueling probe i would imagine that CF-5s would be closest to getting images but they modified them with tip tanks that also would further change the cockpit.

Posted
I feel like they should add an F5 with a refueling probe or 2 seats in some way, I feel like multi crew would be phenomenal on this air frame, Yes its a lot of work but you could have to single seat fighters tangling with migs and 2 seaters loitering and doing longer range cas etc, just a though. :)

 

Obviously this would be a huge undertaking but at least it could be the first two seat aircraft with air to air refuelling capabilities.

 

The F-5F is basically a trainer. Less range, one less gun. Not truly missionised.

 

How about we just enjoy the current jet and allow it to mature before once again, asking for another variant? Sounds like a broken record.

 

-Storm

  • Like 1
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...