Lucas_From_Hell Posted April 15, 2019 Share Posted April 15, 2019 When I want something modern and technological I go fly the Mirage 2000. When I start up an F-5, it's because I want to go, spot the target with my own eyes and gun the Gomer down instead of hiding behind a radar scope. The F-5E is my favourite plane in DCS, but I voted 'No' because I don't feel the F-5N is a good direction for it. We already went down the USN/USMC Aggressor route with this F-5E-3 and in my opinion it's a poor choice already because it adds some gizmos that weren't used for most of its operational history while also lacking very important radio and navigation gear for combat use. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudikoff Posted April 15, 2019 Share Posted April 15, 2019 Yes, Brazil, Chile, Singapore and maybe some other countries operate F-5E updated to "Tiger III" https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2016/06/05/f-5e-tiger-ii-f-5t-tigris-of-the-royal-thai-air-force/ Those are rather modern upgrades with MFD's and stuff, so not exactly what I had in mind (the original F-5E cockpit with some enhancements, like the INS, etc.). I'm just surprised they couldn't have added radar ranging in the A2G mode for bombs and rockets and indicate it with the existing gunsight reticle. i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mars Exulte Posted April 15, 2019 Share Posted April 15, 2019 That is why many people enjoy the Migs, F86, F5, L39 etc for what they are - accurate representations of a real life aircraft. Whether more capable versions of said aircraft exist in real life is irrelevant to what many of us think as a "better" module. I would say this represents the overwhelming majority view here. Personally I prefer the most mass produced, signature model of an aircraft, irrespective of its relative capabilities. Beyond that, I care about detail. Obviously, the more aircraft the better, duuuh! But ''better'' has nothing to do with capabilities. If somebody wants glass cockpit techno fighters they are available, but that hardly means every aircraft must be such or that how it compares to the rest of ecosystem is important. The Yak is unarmed completely, but is my current favorite. 1 Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти. 5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exorcet Posted April 15, 2019 Share Posted April 15, 2019 As an update? No. As its own aircraft that would leave the F-5E available (ie as with the two L-39's)? Yes. I'd like to see DCS get to the point where we can go down the entire version list of aircraft. Newer planes aren't better, or an improvement over older ones. They're just something different. 1 Awaiting: DCS F-15C Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zius Posted April 15, 2019 Share Posted April 15, 2019 Personally I'd prefer a F-5A, because it's what my country's airforce used, but the E is fine as well. I fully agree with what TLTeo said, a better aircraft is not always the better choice. That said, I am happy that we have the MiG-21bis rather than the F-13. Modules: Bf 109, C-101, CE-II, F-5, Gazelle, Huey, Ka-50, Mi-8, MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21, Albatros, Viggen, Mirage 2000, Hornet, Yak-52, FC3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stratos Posted April 15, 2019 Share Posted April 15, 2019 With Syria map we could have F-5 Vs MiG-19 fights, Turkish Tigers Vs Syrian MiG-19. Altough now that I think about it, Turkey used only the A and B variants, and IIRC Syria never used the 19P... I don't understand anything in russian except Davai Davai! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nodak Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 I really do not care for any of the F-5N features but would pay for the 1974 export variant as described in the 1F-5E(I)-1. https://www.eflightmanuals.com/ITEM_EFM/SDETAIL_EFM.asp?mID=8997 What he said, USAF pointy nose aggressor model for the "original" Nellis map, gladly pay for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebabil Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 If i am not wrong, none of the aircraft modules in dcs world were upgraded into another module. so i don't think that this will be an exeption FC3 | UH-1 | Mi-8 | A-10C II | F/A-18 | Ka-50 III | F-14 | F-16 | AH-64 | Mi-24 | F-5 | F-15E| F-4| Tornado Persian Gulf | Nevada | Syria | NS-430 | Supercarrier // Wishlist: CH-53 | UH-60 Youtube MS FFB2 - TM Warthog - CH Pro Pedals - Trackir 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kongamato Posted April 16, 2019 Author Share Posted April 16, 2019 If i am not wrong, none of the aircraft modules in dcs world were upgraded into another module. so i don't think that this will be an exeption The C-101. First was released the C-101EB without weapons, and after several years, the C-101CC with weapons. Anyway, there is a first time for everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nessuno0505 Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 C-101 Is an early access product, f-5 Is a finished module. Bug fixes and maybe texture / graphic overhaul to match 2.5 engine Is the maximum we can expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver_Dragon Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 The C-101. First was released the C-101EB without weapons, and after several years, the C-101CC with weapons. Anyway, there is a first time for everything. C-101EB and CC has the same module with two versions, planned on the initial project. A F-5N has a different version, outside of the F-5E module. That require a different license, the same situation with build a F-5M claimed by a part of a ED forum. Actally has none plans to build a "new" F-5 module by others "develops plans" by ED (complete F/A-18C, F-16, Mi-24, AH-1, etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kongamato Posted April 16, 2019 Author Share Posted April 16, 2019 C-101EB and CC has the same module with two versions, planned on the initial project. A F-5N has a different version, outside of the F-5E module. That require a different license, the same situation with build a F-5M claimed by a part of a ED forum. Actally has none plans to build a "new" F-5 module by others "develops plans" by ED (complete F/A-18C, F-16, Mi-24, AH-1, etc). I know there are no plans. I say it in my first post. Actually, I´m just testing the interes of the comunity in this module that is a few years old now. If people wants more F-5 even paying for it (updates, a new version, etc.) means that people likes this plane and there is still interest in it. If not... well, I suppose that the new girls in the neighborhood (Tomcat, Hornet, Harrier, Viper...) will be the ones people will fly most of the time in the next years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikey Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Testing the interest of a flight sim community on whether they want something new ends up with terribly created side arguments on -Whether they can have it for nothing -Whether they can argue in their own heads that X plane could have carried better ordnance for pvp purposes -Whether they are entitled to have their own minor version changes or that ultimately someone picked the wrong version they didn't want and so on. You can take it, pretty much as 100% guaranteed, that 100% of people want something for free, something different and no one wants to pay for it, least of all, Eagle Dynamics. I know there are no plans. I say it in my first post. Actually, I´m just testing the interes of the comunity in this module that is a few years old now. If people wants more F-5 even paying for it (updates, a new version, etc.) means that people likes this plane and there is still interest in it. If not... well, I suppose that the new girls in the neighborhood (Tomcat, Hornet, Harrier, Viper...) will be the ones people will fly most of the time in the next years. ___________________________________________________________________________ SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kongamato Posted April 17, 2019 Author Share Posted April 17, 2019 Testing the interest of a flight sim community on whether they want something new ends up with terribly created side arguments on -Whether they can have it for nothing -Whether they can argue in their own heads that X plane could have carried better ordnance for pvp purposes -Whether they are entitled to have their own minor version changes or that ultimately someone picked the wrong version they didn't want and so on. You can take it, pretty much as 100% guaranteed, that 100% of people want something for free, something different and no one wants to pay for it, least of all, Eagle Dynamics. LOL! :thumbup::lol: Yeah, that´s why I said it would be a payware, it would be a particular well known version (F-5N, the one used by NAVY and USMC)... But yes, people continue saying "I don´t want that version, I want another one" or "I want weapons that the plane can´t carry or systems that doesn´t have in real life", or "ED should use time and resources in a new plane that nobody in ED have said a word about, but I want it"... I don´t want this plane to be "abandoned" by ED for the Hornet, the Viper or other. I want the module continue evolving and improving with updates and expansions, even paying a few bucks for it. And I want to know if other people think like me or I´m the only one and people have their attention centered in the new modules and this one is being cornered in their virtual hangars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kotor633 Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Sorry but I personally think there are other modules in DCS that would have earned more to upgrade and where I mean you would have more benefit from this (eg the KA-50, Mig-21) ************************************** DCS World needs the Panavia Tornado! Really! ************************************** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zilch Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 The F-5E, in my opinion, has very high value because of its unique mix of performance and limitations. It is fantastic, not in spite of its lack of digital nav systems and sophisticated guidance weapons that lighten your work load, but because of these limits. The F-5E as it is now will make you better. Whether you're flying BFM, CAS, or strike, or even trying to nullify someone else's BVR advantage to get in close, the F-5 demands that you adapt your skills to overcome odds stacked against you. So, I love the F-5 as-is and have learned a ton because of it. HOWEVER, COMMA... The airframe itself had a huge potential that was unfortunately never realized, mostly its well-known under-powered engines and simple avionics. Unleashing this beast's final form, seeing what it should have been, would be a great addition to DCS. So, despite many people only wanting combat-proven aircraft, I think DCS would be a great sandbox platform to realize some great designs that absolutely should have been produced. The F-20 Tigershark is a batshit awesome aircraft that really harnessed the full potential of the F-5's basic design, remedied the thrust problem and added (among other things) full BVR and Maverick capabilities, INS nav system, digital displays, and ease of use. Just top notch. So, if you're talking upgrades to the F-5 (though the Tigershark was really a new airplane,) I think the F-20 is the ultimate incarnation of it. Fat chance of it happening, though... 1 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Zilch79's YouTube Channel: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knock-Knock Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 So, if you're talking upgrades to the F-5 (though the Tigershark was really a new airplane,) I think the F-20 is the ultimate incarnation of it. Fat chance of it happening, though... Mm, sadly, cause that I would throw money at in a heartbeat. - Jack of many DCS modules, master of none. - Personal wishlist: F-15A, F-4S Phantom II, JAS 39A Gripen, SAAB 35 Draken, F-104 Starfighter, Panavia Tornado IDS. | Windows 11 | i5-12400 | 64Gb DDR4 | RTX 3080 | 2x M.2 | 27" 1440p | Rift CV1 | Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS | MFG Crosswind pedals | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kongamato Posted April 17, 2019 Author Share Posted April 17, 2019 The F-20 Tigershark is a batshit awesome aircraft that really harnessed the full potential of the F-5's basic design, remedied the thrust problem and added (among other things) full BVR and Maverick capabilities, INS nav system, digital displays, and ease of use. Just top notch. So, if you're talking upgrades to the F-5 (though the Tigershark was really a new airplane,) I think the F-20 is the ultimate incarnation of it. Fat chance of it happening, though... That's a 100% different aircraft: different engine, different cockpit, different 3D model, 100% different flight model since the F-20 was to have Fly By Wire... It would not be an update of the F-5E. It would be a brand new plane that should be done from zero. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck_Henry Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 I don't want this plane to be "abandoned" by ED for the Hornet, the Viper or other. I want the module continue evolving and improving with updates and expansions, even paying a few bucks for it. And I want to know if other people think like me or I'm the only one and people have their attention centered in the new modules and this one is being cornered in their virtual hangars. I wouldn't necessarily call the F-5E abandoned. It's feature-complete in every sense of the phrase. Belsimtek just picked a rather bare-bones variant of the F-5 to simulate. I mean, for Christ's sake, it doesn't even have ILS, VOR, or an INS. Technologies that all existed upon the aircraft's inception and could have been easily integrated. You're far from the only one who wants a more modern, or at least more capable, version of the F-5. I wouldn't say I've pushed it to the side of my virtual hangar in favor of the newer modules, but I definitely fly it a lot less than I used to. I pretty much treat it like a T-38 now. Every now and then I'll hop in to sharpen my skills for flying an entirely manual airplane, particularly when it comes to flared landings since you shouldn't do those in the F/A-18 or F-14 (my other 2 modules). Besides that, I have zero desire to take the F-5E into combat ever again. I would love an F-5N with the redesigned radio stack and center MFD. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stratos Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 (edited) I would prefer a variant capable of deploying AGM-65, and If possible an air to air refuelling probe. that, or totally the opposite, F-5A Freedom Fighter. Edited April 19, 2019 by Stratos I don't understand anything in russian except Davai Davai! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnappShot Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 This conversation is such a waste of pixels for a moving map, and slightly different radio. Waste of time investment by devs and I fly the F-5 very regularly and slay tomcats with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev2go Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 +1 Did a wishlist thread on the F5N in the past. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=217012 Build: Windows 10 64 bit Pro Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD, WD 1TB HDD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auditor Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 What I would like more, and this is something that goes for all planes, really: is native NS430 integration. No more popups, just let users use the built-in nav and comm radios of the GNS430. Make those actually do something instead of just being numbers that don't do anything. Then you can put it where the radio stack currently is. But I have this complaint with a lot of planes. We have the tools already to add a lot of value to many different planes with a device that was made for the task, but no one does it. A helicopter and a trainer jet are the only two that get that privilege. If any resources were spent on development, I would like that and more quality of life improvements than more variants, overall. Especially if there is real-life evidence of these tools being used in the past. I think that provides more value for us, as consumers, than making variant after variant. Unless, and here's the exception: there's a push to make a 'baseline' set of aircraft for a specific timeframe (IE: Sometime in the future there's a Vietnam map released and some aircraft are given their Vietnam variants). Because right now what we have is kind of scattershot in terms of timeframe, and making time-specific missions depends mostly on restricting the loadout. But that's just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kongamato Posted April 21, 2019 Author Share Posted April 21, 2019 What I would like more, and this is something that goes for all planes, really: is native NS430 integration. No more popups, just let users use the built-in nav and comm radios of the GNS430. Make those actually do something instead of just being numbers that don't do anything. Then you can put it where the radio stack currently is. But I have this complaint with a lot of planes. We have the tools already to add a lot of value to many different planes with a device that was made for the task, but no one does it. A helicopter and a trainer jet are the only two that get that privilege. If any resources were spent on development, I would like that and more quality of life improvements than more variants, overall. Especially if there is real-life evidence of these tools being used in the past. I think that provides more value for us, as consumers, than making variant after variant. Unless, and here's the exception: there's a push to make a 'baseline' set of aircraft for a specific timeframe (IE: Sometime in the future there's a Vietnam map released and some aircraft are given their Vietnam variants). Because right now what we have is kind of scattershot in terms of timeframe, and making time-specific missions depends mostly on restricting the loadout. But that's just my two cents. This is not the thread to say it. The tread to say it is the one of the NS430. The place where I asked for that integration, by the way. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=239273 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DmitriKozlowsky Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 I see secure crypto capable ARC radios . So that would just be simmed as normal DCS radio, albeit with better eye candy. UHF1-UHF2 radio switch on port side of HUD The center MFD for radar and moving map display. EGI nav similar to A-10C and AV-8B/NA. The N like Brazil's EM variant can probably carry AIM-9M. I dunno if either can carry AIM-120A/B. Probably not. Perhaps expanded ability to carry more then 2 X AIM-9P5 on outer wing pylons, in addition to wing tips. Would be nice to have more then a handfull of chaff/flare that F-5E has. Raytheon did develop and market ECM for F-5 family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts