The F-5 needs an upgrade IMO

[firmek]

So I'm reading through the various replies and came to this thought.

In Vietnam, guys were lucky to ever get a shot on one MiG, nonetheless multiples in a single sortie. And that was in the Phantom, designed for that mission.

 

The F-5 isn't a long-range fighter. It has short legs, and small teeth. A low cost solution for small countries to add some A-to-A defense.

 

This module is NOT the export version, nor an F-16. It's not an Ace Combat jet where you can shoot down an entire wings worth of fighters in a single mission.

 

To fly and fight in it, you have to learn to be selective in your missions. Pick your shot and then RTB or reengage with guns if the opportunity arises. I love using the dead is dead mindset. If I die in a mission, especially if I pushed it too far, then that logbook closes forever.

 

Because this is a game, people expect to become and Ace in a day. In this module, it's not going to happen. It's frustrating that people gripe about what it cant do and expect something they knew long ago, wouldn't be there.

 

Granted, the broken stuff needs to get fixed, but the rest comes off as kids whining.

This thread can be really depressing and frustrating observation. Some time ago when DCS had only one full fidelity A-10C module we might find threads like this: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=79975 and people that according to approach illustratd few time in this thread could be considered insane as they've been limiting loadouts available in the SIM to fly as close as possible to the the reality. Yes there are actually people that are flying A-10 with max 4 Mav while 6 can be loaded in DCS due to the fact that in reality the inner missiles would burn the tires.

Today we've got a fully fidelity, realistically modeled aircraft in the version that was the highest build in numbers and what's also important has an exactly matching opponent in Mig-21 from the era but it seems to be not meeting the expectations as its not powerful enough for air version of unreal tournament servers with all Russian and US, 4 gen to WW2 fighters on both sides.

 

In reality the military airplanes have never been perfectly matching each other. DCS is simulation and should be aimed for reality not "balancing".

Nowadays sim's are a niche and the devs should not spend time on developing a niche versions. The direction should be to deliver the main stream of aircrafts from given generation/era so that they it's possible to build missions in more complete and historicaly adequate environment.

[KansasCS]

Amen to that.

 

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[Tirak]

This thread can be really depressing and frustrating observation. Some time ago when DCS had only one full fidelity A-10C module we might find threads like this: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=79975 and people that according to approach illustratd few time in this thread could be considered insane as they've been limiting loadouts available in the SIM to fly as close as possible to the the reality. Yes there are actually people that are flying A-10 with max 4 Mav while 6 can be loaded in DCS due to the fact that in reality the inner missiles would burn the tires.

Today we've got a fully fidelity, realistically modeled aircraft in the version that was the highest build in numbers and what's also important has an exactly matching opponent in Mig-21 from the era but it seems to be not meeting the expectations as its not powerful enough for air version of unreal tournament servers with all Russian and US, 4 gen to WW2 fighters on both sides.

 

In reality the military airplanes have never been perfectly matching each other. DCS is simulation and should be aimed for reality not "balancing".

Nowadays sim's are a niche and the devs should not spend time on developing a niche versions. The direction should be to deliver the main stream of aircrafts from given generation/era so that they it's possible to build missions in more complete and historicaly adequate environment.

 

Apples and oranges mate, don't get them crossed. The A-10C can and is rated to carry 6 mavs. The F-5E-3 we have cannot carry 4 sidewinders or mavs, not because of doctrine, but it is physically unable to do so. Do not get these arguments mixed.

[BSS_Sniper]

It's not that the F5 needs an upgrade, it just shouldn't have been done in the first place. The same goes for the Hawk, 101 and L39. While I appreciate the effort that goes into making these, training, aircraft, I wish DCS would get organized and focus on aircraft that we could actually use. I won't go into naming them, there are too many out there and they keep getting skipped over in favor of these planes that will be used for a month then disappear on the servers.

[firmek]

Apples and oranges mate, don't get them crossed. The A-10C can and is rated to carry 6 mavs. The F-5E-3 we have cannot carry 4 sidewinders or mavs, not because of doctrine, but it is physically unable to do so. Do not get these arguments mixed.

As I was saying it has been an old discussion and might have missed something but the specific loadout of A10 was not the point. The point was about the approach to seeking and appreciating the realism aspects of the SIM.

[upupandaway]

In reality the military airplanes have never been perfectly matching each other. DCS is simulation and should be aimed for reality not "balancing.

 

This is pretty much what Wags once stated in one of his YouTube videos. I don't know if anyone has brought it up, yet...

Who knows what circumstances led BST to choose the particular version we have now... :)

[KansasCS]

It's not that the F5 needs an upgrade, it just shouldn't have been done in the first place. The same goes for the Hawk, 101 and L39. While I appreciate the effort that goes into making these, training, aircraft, I wish DCS would get organized and focus on aircraft that we could actually use. I won't go into naming them, there are too many out there and they keep getting skipped over in favor of these planes that will be used for a month then disappear on the servers.

 

 

You're completely ignoring the fact that just because there is a demand, doesn't mean it will be done.

Jets can be classified, access to them difficult/restricted. Documentation incomplete or restricted, difficulty to code can be a barrier for dev teams doing it the first time.

Also, 3rd party devs don't communicate.

Just because VEAO made a hawk, doesn't mean aviodev will discontinue their c101.

It doesn't work like that.

It has never has. Besides, the mirage/mig21/F18 on the way/mirageIII in the works etc pp are all full fidelity stuff.

DCS is in comparison to what it could be, still in it's infancy.

[top62]

The F-5.3 model not have an INS?

[Tirak]

As I was saying it has been an old discussion and might have missed something but the specific loadout of A10 was not the point. The point was about the approach to seeking and appreciating the realism aspects of the SIM.

 

No, this is a completely different argument. Arguments for realism on A-10C loadouts based on doctrine are in no way related to arguments about adding in capability that does not exist on the current variant of F-5 we have.

[blkspade]

It's not that the F5 needs an upgrade, it just shouldn't have been done in the first place. The same goes for the Hawk, 101 and L39. While I appreciate the effort that goes into making these, training, aircraft, I wish DCS would get organized and focus on aircraft that we could actually use. I won't go into naming them, there are too many out there and they keep getting skipped over in favor of these planes that will be used for a month then disappear on the servers.

 

This is pretty much how I feel about many of the modules that have come out. They lack utility in the sim as a whole. Every module is released in its own little bubble, primarily with a single player experience in mind, but often that is even incomplete. Something like the P-51 was a half measure, when there was zero way apply it realistically. No contemporary opponents, allies or assets. The F-5 in sim boils down to a less functional super sonic A-10. I only own the A-10C to lessen the curve in A-G for the eventual F-18C release. At least MiG-21 had proper AI competition from the start. A-A modules need contemporary dissimilar PVP opposition to be truly complete, because AI will never be good enough. F-5 basically completes the MiG-21 (or rather each other), though the F-4 would probably have been better.

[mattebubben]

It's not that the F5 needs an upgrade, it just shouldn't have been done in the first place. The same goes for the Hawk, 101 and L39. While I appreciate the effort that goes into making these, training, aircraft, I wish DCS would get organized and focus on aircraft that we could actually use. I won't go into naming them, there are too many out there and they keep getting skipped over in favor of these planes that will be used for a month then disappear on the servers.

 

How is the F-5E a Training aircraft?...

 

Its a "multirole" combat tested fighter aircraft that has seen use with a large number of airforces and in some cases been their main fighter.

 

Its a Decent little ground pounder aswell and can carry a decent load of bombs and rockets.

 

the F-5E can be used and its a great little aircraft.

 

Can it tangle on even terms in open air with 4th gen fighters? no but then again few aircraft (that are not 4th gen fighters) can and very few aircraft of the same Generation of the F-5 would do any better then it does.

 

And also please stop talking like everybody in the DCS forum thinks like you.

 

Yes some only want modern aircraft and thats ok (as long as they dont harass those that think differently)

 

But plenty of others want a wide range of aircraft including 1970s and 1960s aircraft why should ED and the 3rd Party Devs "get organized" and focus only on the aircraft types and you personally think deserve being added to the game?...

 

And its also the fact that something like the F-5E is both easier to make and easier to get proper information on.

 

As well as the fact that limitations in DCS would make it difficult to make many aircraft.

 

For example the F-16 would require Air-Ground radar to be fully modeled or you could only use a fraction of its abilities / capabilities and i dont think any of the Devs would be willing to make a aircraft in such a way.

 

And many other aircraft are also dependant on air-ground functionality in order to be fully modeled.

 

And that Functionality is coming pretty soon (together with the F-18 )

 

so at that point devs will be able to make Aircraft that need Air-Ground Radar functionality to work properly.

 

Another area that limited possible aircraft was the lack of a system for Two seat combat aircraft (like a F-4 etc were both seats are equally important in order to have a combat capable platform)

but that is also something that is getting closer and closer to being finished / implemented into the game.

 

Alot of the reasons for the Aircraft that have been made so far is not that they dont want to make other aircraft but that they simply cant.

 

Either by lack of information/Permissions needed or simply because the tech/systems needed in the games to make such and aircraft is not available yet.

 

But as the game gets more and more mature with more and more functionality added we will see that the 3rd party devs will be able to make more and more advanced aircraft.

 

There is always a reason for the choices ED and 3rd party devs make and that reason is not just to Spite you...

Atleast im pretty sure that is not the reason.

Edited August 3, 2016 by mattebubben

[Capn kamikaze]

Apples and oranges mate, don't get them crossed. The A-10C can and is rated to carry 6 mavs. The F-5E-3 we have cannot carry 4 sidewinders or mavs, not because of doctrine, but it is physically unable to do so. Do not get these arguments mixed.

 

No one is asking for an F-5E-3 to be made to carry 4 sidewinders, that would be unrealistic, what I was suggesting was ANOTHER version alongside the F-5E-3, that could, so it would be more useful in the air to air role than the F-5E-3 is.

 

How many times do I need to explain this point?

[SkateZilla]

You Basically want an F-5E Export, which is an entirely different aircraft, the PSM would have to be re-done to include the new Pylon wiring coding, the new AGM Modes, 3d Model Adjustments to the cockpit, adjustments to the PFM, etc etc.

 

Alot of work.. not a simple copy paste, publish, done.

 

Could have been alot worse, they could have gone w/ the F-5E Block I

[Capn kamikaze]

Alot of work.. not a simple copy paste, publish, done.

 

I never said it wouldn't be a lot of work...

 

Just that the F-5E-3 isn't that useful when you really think about it, I predict in a few months hardly anyone will be flying it in PvP unless in a few months they've only just bought it.

 

I found fairly early on that the extremely limited payload really limited what you could do with the jet, even if I scored two kills with two missiles (which at the moment is a bit of an achievement) with or without using guns, you suddenly find yourself not being very useful, you're a spectator/target.

[SkateZilla]

this is where Flight/Wingman tactics come in..

[firmek]

No, this is a completely different argument. Arguments for realism on A-10C loadouts based on doctrine are in no way related to arguments about adding in capability that does not exist on the current variant of F-5 we have.

And where did I stated or even slightly imposed that F-5E had this capability? :huh:

It's obvious that it didn't had and that's why I've used this example to underline the contrast between the attitude to potentially limiting the capability of load-out available in sim (it doesn't really matter whatever the specific reason was, the fact that such discussions had place was the point) and asking for something that was not realistic at all.

It would be good to put more attention to overall meaning of the message. But never-mind, it's not entertaining to make an analysis of single sentences from the post.

[Azazel]

I never said it wouldn't be a lot of work...

 

Just that the F-5E-3 isn't that useful when you really think about it, I predict in a few months hardly anyone will be flying it in PvP unless in a few months they've only just bought it.

 

I found fairly early on that the extremely limited payload really limited what you could do with the jet, even if I scored two kills with two missiles (which at the moment is a bit of an achievement) with or without using guns, you suddenly find yourself not being very useful, you're a spectator/target.

 

This is very dependent on the mission you're flying and how you fight. In BlueFlag I have now scored several kills on Mig-29s and Su-27s. About half of those are with guns. My flights usually last between 30 to 60 min per. I could jump in an F-15C and get more kills per flight but I find flying the full fidelity F-5 much more gratifying. Others are also getting very good at using it as a strike fighter, lots of work but also fun and very gratifying.

[Tirak]

And where did I stated or even slightly imposed that F-5E had this capability? :huh:

It's obvious that it didn't had and that's why I've used this example to underline the contrast between the attitude to potentially limiting the capability of load-out available in sim (it doesn't really matter whatever the specific reason was, the fact that such discussions had place was the point) and asking for something that was not realistic at all.

It would be good to put more attention to overall meaning of the message. But never-mind, it's not entertaining to make an analysis of single sentences from the post.

 

You're trying to draw parallels between the old A-10C loadout arguments, and this argument. They cannot be compared as they advocate for very different things. This argument being had has to do with modifying an aircraft, either to have unrealistic capabilities, or to present a different version all together.

 

The arguments about the A-10 are about doctrinal decisions, not physical limitations. They cannot be compared.

[SkateZilla]

a 3-4 Ship Formation can thrash in most of these MP missions,

 

If a Mission Designer is sending one lone F-5E in against 4 Su-2x's or Mig-2x's then the aircraft is being improperly utilized.

[Silver_Dragon]

It's not that the F5 needs an upgrade, it just shouldn't have been done in the first place. The same goes for the Hawk, 101 and L39. While I appreciate the effort that goes into making these, training, aircraft, I wish DCS would get organized and focus on aircraft that we could actually use. I won't go into naming them, there are too many out there and they keep getting skipped over in favor of these planes that will be used for a month then disappear on the servers.

 

"Let us take it in parts." as say Jack the Reaper.... :lol:

 

- Meanwhile ED was maked the L-39 (test-bed of Multicrew feature), you say the L-39, Hawk and C-101 has a waste of time...... what part of "light attack" aircraft's, actually in service you are missing?.

- The 3rd parties (VEAO, Aviodev, etc) need "Do not run before you can walk" experience on DCS: W engine before jump to more more advance aircrafts (AvioDev has on develop of F-1 Mirage, and VEAO run with the P-40F the Eurofighter and more).

- The 3rd parties require survive with most quantity "favor aircraft" before move to a more "favor aircraf"

- The more "favor aircrafts" has actually require a great more develop time and a great team to make them compare with your most "favor aircraft".

- The technology require to build the more "favor aircrafts" will has not present actually or has in develop into DCS: W (F/A-18C and ground radar / carrier operations). Take account with some aircrafts can "under law secret", restricted or very vague info about weapons and system work into them.

- Take account your team can need a great quantity of money and / or time to get the PI / license approval to start the develop (VEAO and A-4 license has example).

- Others aircraft has under "lock" status in some system (F-4 Phantom).

- Other 3rd Parties started with a more "favor aircrafts" has actually dead with a unreachable develop target aircraft (Coretex and your F/A-18E, IRIS and your F-22, Kinney Interactive and your F-35)

[firmek]

Seriously my last reply as this is becoming tiring. Again read the whole post without focusing on the secondary details that are not important to the overall message. It was about the attitude and the requests while there was no intention as it was not important/couldn't care less about the specific reasons be it related to the doctrine or physical limitations or climatic changes.

[Tirak]

Seriously my last reply as this is becoming tiring. Again read the whole post without focusing on the secondary details that are not important to the overall message. It was about the attitude and the requests while there was no intention as it was not important/couldn't care less about the specific reasons be it related to the doctrine or physical limitations or climatic changes.

 

And what I'm telling you is that the attitude is different. The two arguments are not the same, the attitude behind them is not the same. The A-10 argument centers around whether or not the intent of an airframe is to be flown in as similar a way to real life as possible, or by its rated capabilities.

 

The argument here with the F-5 is not this in any way.

[SkateZilla]

it's nothing new,

 

ie:

-Users want Updated Su-27s to use newer Missiles,

-Users want Updated MiG-29s to use HDD for more than HUD Repeater,

-Users want Updated A-10C SUITE to use newer Helmet Interfaces and Radios Etc.

-Users want Updated M-2000's to use newer Missiles/Radars

 

Etc, Etc.

 

Users constantly ask for updated/newer block versions of a released module to get around any handi-caps of the modeled block.

 

And it's always been met w/ the same Pro/Con Level of Criticism by the community.

 

 

If the Data was there, and the resources, I could see BST doing a F-5E Export/Later Block,

 

But this Block was likely chosen due to this being the block with the most concrete authentic information legally available.

[Tirak]

it's nothing new,

 

ie:

-Users want Updated Su-27s to use newer Missiles,

-Users want Updated MiG-29s to use HDD for more than HUD Repeater,

-Users want Updated A-10C SUITE to use newer Helmet Interfaces and Radios Etc.

-Users want Updated M-2000's to use newer Missiles/Radars

 

Etc, Etc.

 

Users constantly ask for updated/newer block versions of a released module to get around any handi-caps of the modeled block.

 

And it's always been met w/ the same Pro/Con Level of Criticism by the community.

 

 

If the Data was there, and the resources, I could see BST doing a F-5E Export/Later Block,

 

But this Block was likely chosen due to this being the block with the most concrete authentic information legally available.

 

I'm not claiming it's a new argument, but it is different than the A-10 one he kept trying to insist on.

[firmek]

And what I'm telling you is that the attitude is different. The two arguments are not the same, the attitude behind them is not the same. The A-10 argument centers around whether or not the intent of an airframe is to be flown in as similar a way to real life as possible, or by its rated capabilities.

 

The argument here with the F-5 is not this in any way.

We're still talking about the different things. It's about the attitude towards realistic experience in DCS while whatever the reasons and arguments behind are is secondary if not important at all.