The F-5 needs an upgrade IMO

[cichlidfan]

The bottom line is that the OP is not happy with the version modelled. There is a thread, or threads, like this for pretty much every single module.

 

Somebody is always unhappy no matter what aircraft gets produced. Such is life when you have to buy the product that is available instead of making your own.

[zcrazyx]

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

 

I know what the F is and I know that adding another variant is a hug undertaking especially when a whole new cockpit would have to be modelled and coded, it was a simply a suggestion for whenever they wish to persue such things, I just think that the ability to have two seats while aerial refueling etc would be a great thing but not necerserally needed.

 

Also if you would read previous comments a lot of people wish to have a refuelling probe which is literally the most realistic of the suggestions to add from the stand point of information out there and also actual evidence of it even existing and being a thing on the E.

[mattebubben]

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.

 

There is already plenty of Solid Proof of the ability of the F-5E being able to use the AGM-65 and how it did it

(with the Seeker video feed being Displayed by the modified Radar Display and then using same controls is used to select a target with the radar to slew the seeker on the desired target)

 

Its not Proof they are wanting or waiting for.

 

Its Detailed info (Pictures and optimally a Manual) that includes all the specific details in order for them to properly simulate it.

[zcrazyx]

The bottom line is that the OP is not happy with the version modelled. There is a thread, or threads, like this for pretty much every single module.

 

Somebody is always unhappy no matter what aircraft gets produced. Such is life when you have to buy the product that is available instead of making your own.

 

That's not really adding much into the discussion other then saying that if you dont like something do it yourself which is something not a lot of people can do due to knowledge or have the time to do.

[cichlidfan]

That's not really adding much into the discussion other then saying that if you dont like something do it yourself which is something not a lot of people can do due to knowledge or have the time to do.

 

My comment refers to any product on the market. You either buy what is available or make your own. I own many things which I think should have been done differently but, it is what it is.

 

The discussion doesn't need adding to because the horse is dead and beating it won't make a significant difference to the owner of the horse.

[zcrazyx]

My comment refers to any product on the market. You either buy what is available or make your own. I own many things which I think should have been done differently but, it is what it is.

 

The discussion doesn't need adding to because the horse is dead and beating it won't make a significant difference to the owner of the horse.

 

Yes but it's still a discussion, the point of which is to see what peoples views are, that being said it can also be used as a way to convey information on systems and to see who want's it. If enough people want it then it would be safe to assume it may be a good idea to add it or in some cases not add things.

[cichlidfan]

Yes but it's still a discussion, the point of which is to see what peoples views are, that being said it can also be used as a way to convey information on systems and to see who want's it. If enough people want it then it would be safe to assume it may be a good idea to add it or in some cases not add things.

 

Good ideas and financial sound ideas are not always the same thing.

[zcrazyx]

Good ideas and financial sound ideas are not always the same thing.

 

If many people who have not yet purchased something (which is most likely the case as it's alpha) want something then adding it may financially be a good idea.

[mattebubben]

If many people who have not yet purchased something (which is most likely the case as it's alpha) want something then adding it may financially be a good idea.

 

Depends on how much work would be needed.

 

And adding the Fuel Probe would be alot more work then might be thought .

(if they want to do it properly that is a knowing Belstimtek if they decide to do something they will do it correctly)

 

It would require more then just Modifying the Visual Model.

 

(that would probably be the least of the changes needed).

 

So the question is if the Reward is worth the extra work or not.

 

(and also depends if they have all the information needed etc to simulate a F-5E with the Fuel Probe)

[zcrazyx]

Depends on how much work would be needed.

 

And adding the Fuel Probe would be alot more work then might be thought .

(if they want to do it properly that is a knowing Belstimtek if they decide to do something they will do it correctly)

 

It would require more then just Modifying the Visual Model.

 

(that would probably be the least of the changes needed).

 

So the question is if the Reward is worth the extra work or not.

 

(and also depends if they have all the information needed etc to simulate a F-5E with the Fuel Probe)

 

The same applies to any other additional thing they add, as i've said there seems to be a lot more information supporting things like probes then additional rails for missiles as well as AGM 65s so after they Iron out a lot of the bugs with the current model then they could pursue it. Would be easier (although still a lot of work) to add a refueling probe to the E rather than making the F.

 

As for this thread it was only his opinion then we all injected out thoughts and therefore non of these suggestions are necerserally needed but would be nice to have as is why I also said I personally would like to see a two seater variant of some kind.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Solution: Fly with a buddy. Bam, 4 AIM-9s that will miss, forcing you to get better with guns. :thumbup:

 

Although, having Mavericks would be REALLY nice.

[VTJS17_Fire]

Seriously? The F-5E is less than a week available and you ask for an upgrade? :doh:

 

If I had the choice to get another version of the same aircraft or another aircraft by Belsimtek, I would take the second one. ;)

[zcrazyx]

Seriously? The F-5E is less than a week available and you ask for an upgrade? :doh:

 

If I had the choice to get another version of the same aircraft or another aircraft by Belsimtek, I would take the second one. ;)

 

I feel like people are asking for upgrades because the Aims are junk at the moment because of the FOV which they have noted however it's also probably because people were expecting different versions/modifications of the F5.

[mattebubben]

The same applies to any other additional thing they add, as i've said there seems to be a lot more information supporting things like probes then additional rails for missiles as well as AGM 65s so after they Iron out a lot of the bugs with the current model then they could pursue it. Would be easier (although still a lot of work) to add a refueling probe to the E rather than making the F.

 

As for this thread it was only his opinion then we all injected out thoughts and therefore non of these suggestions are necerserally needed but would be nice to have as is why I also said I personally would like to see a two seater variant of some kind.

 

With more information on the Probes you mean Pictures right?...

 

Pictures is not really what they need to implement something.

 

They need to know how it worked (how it was turned on / Turned off how what pressures it operated on how much it weighed what id did to the flight model and many other things)

 

Not just what it looked like.

 

So many people on this forum (not talking about you specifically now)

seem to think that a picture is the only evidence that matters and that a picture is more important that any other data or what ever backstory there might be to the picture in question.

 

They just see that the aircraft in question has something on a picture (a weapon or attachment or whatever) and then assume that that picture is enough proof that the item in question should be added.

 

Would not be surprised if somebody made a serious Thread on the A-10 Forum Demanding that the Following Gunpod be added.

 

 

After all there is a picture of it so it has to be a loadout that is used and realisic and thus it should be added to the game.

Edited July 27, 2016 by mattebubben

[Texac]

They should have changed the weapons on the "gunpod" with a minigun for 100% effectiveness.

[FSKRipper]

I feel like people are asking for upgrades because the Aims are junk at the moment because of the FOV which they have noted however it's also probably because people were expecting different versions/modifications of the F5.

 

Maybe, but this is WIP by ED to improve the AA-missiles.

That is not a justified reason to demand another version of the aircraft and as far as I remember Belsimtek stated clearly from the beginning which version with which specific armament is coming. Imagine the Su-27 pilots would start a rebellion because the R-27 isn't working as supposed to do :music_whistling:

 

@mattebuben: I really like this gunpod. Could I also get a lightweight version with supermodels? Would also change the M-16 for a an Uzi.

Edited July 27, 2016 by FSKRipper

[zcrazyx]

Maybe, but this is WIP by ED to improve the AA-missiles.

That is not a justified reason to demand another version of the aircraft and as far as I remember Belsimtek stated clearly from the beginning which version with which specific armament is coming. Imagine the Su-27 pilots would start a rebellion because the R-27 isn't working as supposed to do :music_whistling:

 

@mattebuben: I really like this gunpod. Could I also get a lightweight version with supermodels? Would also change the M-16 for a an Uzi.

 

I was not demanding, I was suggesting and saying it might be a fun thing to play around with. I personally like the F5E as it is now it's just the fact i love to do certain things in dcs.

[zcrazyx]

With more information on the Probes you mean Pictures right?...

 

Pictures is not really what they need to implement something.

 

They need to know how it worked (how it was turned on / Turned off how what pressures it operated on how much it weighed what id did to the flight model and many other things)

 

Not just what it looked like.

 

So many people on this forum (not talking about you specifically now)

seem to think that a picture is the only evidence that matters and that a picture is more important that any other data or what ever backstory there might be to the picture in question.

 

They just see that the aircraft in question has something on a picture (a weapon or attachment or whatever) and then assume that that picture is enough proof that the item in question should be added.

 

Would not be surprised if somebody made a serious Thread on the A-10 Forum Demanding that the Following Gunpod be added.

 

 

After all there is a picture of it so it has to be a loadout that is used and realisic and thus it should be added to the game.

 

Well obviously, I know there are cockpit images of various F5s with probes on around to at least verify where the switch is itself but one would imagine that also varies from nation to nation, also seeing as it was an official optional addon I do wonder if there is a segment in the official F5E Manual somewhere about that sort of thing, after all that specifically would seem like it would not be top secret.

 

I get what you mean though although when or if the Skyraider comes i just know that people (myself included) will probably be asking for that toilet lmao. but that's getting a bit off topic.

 

%5Bimg%5Dhttp%3A//www.midwaysailor.com/midwayva25bomb/va25specbomb-010b.jpg

 

 

Also just found this. Not sure if its a real copy.

 

http://www.flight-manuals.com/1f-5e-1.html

Edited July 27, 2016 by zcrazyx

[Silver_Dragon]

Has a real copy of USAF F-5E/F manual, the same manual use by BSK to build your the F-5E module. No A-A refueling probe or more AIM-9's, no present on USAF versions.

 

Flight manual

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/1946738/?sphrase_id=4250310

 

Weapons manual

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/1946809/?sphrase_id=4250313

[mattebubben]

Well obviously, I know there are cockpit images of various F5s with probes on around to at least verify where the switch is itself but one would imagine that also varies from nation to nation, also seeing as it was an official optional addon I do wonder if there is a segment in the official F5E Manual somewhere about that sort of thing, after all that specifically would seem like it would not be top secret.

 

I get what you mean though although when or if the Skyraider comes i just know that people (myself included) will probably be asking for that toilet lmao. but that's getting a bit off topic.

 

Also just found this. Not sure if its a real copy.

 

http://www.flight-manuals.com/1f-5e-1.html

 

Its real and you can get it here as well for free.

 

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/northrop/f-5tigerii/t-o-1f-5e-1-f-5e-flight-manual.html

 

Dont think it has any mention of Mid Air Refuling though

(since the variant in Question did not have the refuling probe and this is a US manual and dont think the US had any F-5Es with Refuling Probes)

 

And also if it was the case that it would be in the official manual since it was a common export option then would not the same be the case for the AGM-65? as the AGM-65 Capable display was also an

Official optional addon.

 

Edit: Dang Silver beat me to it ^^.

[Schmidtfire]

This thread is a sad read and maybe a bit disgraceful? Belsimtek did a stellar job. Complete manual, excellent FM, some bugs but not game-breaking... And here we are, people crying for stuff that is clearly not standard on the airframe modeled... you knew that F-5E was going to be a limited aircraft, so deal with it like a grown up. Change your flying and tactics to match instead of trying to change a realistic module around your own style of playing.

[mattebubben]

Yea =P Having 4 Aim-9s would not be a Significant change over having two.

 

If you know how to use the aircraft and its weapons (atleast once the missiles are fixed) then the 2 missiles as well as the cannon should be good enough.

 

And if the Two missiles you have is not enough for you to score a kill then i dont think the two extra missiles would help.

 

It should be no problem to Avg 2-3 kills in the F-5E using the 2 missiles and the cannon if you make your shots count.

 

And Its better to learn how to use your weapons count then to rely on having many missiles so you can afford wasting some.

 

Example being the Mirage 2000.

 

When it came out alot of ppl complained that the 2000C only has 4 missiles and there were a large number of ppl (probably many of them the same that are complaining now) and demanding the Mica missiles be added so we could have up to 8 missiles.

 

Yet any Competant Mirage 2000C pilot should be able to rack up 3-4 kills a flight if he knows how to use his weapons.

 

 

a Good F-5E or Mirage 2000C pilot will learn not to waste any missiles but to make every shot count and as such be more effective were as pilots of aircraft like the Su-27,F-15 or even the Mig-21 might be more trigger happy and launch missiles that are less likely to hit because they know they always have more to throw at the foe.

 

What way do you think makes for the better Pilot?

[FSKRipper]

I was not demanding, I was suggesting and saying it might be a fun thing to play around with. I personally like the F5E as it is now it's just the fact i love to do certain things in dcs.

 

If there is a planned option like at the Gazelle module, fine.

So let's be practical, could they build it? Sure! The question is would you and other folks be willing to pay for lets say some 100 hours developing time for another version of the same module? You would have to, because I won't...

Edited July 27, 2016 by FSKRipper

[Scooternutz]

Nah, leave it.

[zcrazyx]

This thread is a sad read and maybe a bit disgraceful? Belsimtek did a stellar job. Complete manual, excellent FM, some bugs but not game-breaking... And here we are, people crying for stuff that is clearly not standard on the airframe modeled... you knew that F-5E was going to be a limited aircraft, so deal with it like a grown up. Change your flying and tactics to match instead of trying to change a realistic module around your own style of playing.

 

I don't think anyone is saying the module is bad or that BST did a bad job, I love the module.

 

As for realism and standard aircraft i think you forget with the F5 there is not really a standard, an example being if you look at the US manual it even includes INS and reconnaissance package which is not in game, no one is crying and the F-5 does not have to be a limited aircraft and adding certain things does not make it in any way better than it's competitor the MIG-21 other than the addition of more missiles specifically aim 120s.

 

No one at least me is crying we're just saying it would be nice to have certain things.

 

If you look at page 231 of the US F-5E manual you'll see no AGM-65s but in the same manual of the same aircraft you'll see as stated before the INS and Recon package.

 

the reason the probe is not mentioned the the US manual is because the US did not see the need to have such a thing as it was to be used as an aggressor but if we were to look at export manuals of say the Saudi airforce it would be likely that it would be in the manual as would the AGMs and possibly aim 120s.

 

Regardless of what could be added it would still require hard work and effort weather it be agms, aim 120s, ins or recon packages the difference is simply to do with the country that used them and also the fact its either internal or external to the model.

Edited July 28, 2016 by zcrazyx