Couple newbie F-5E pilot questions

[razo+r]

4 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

I do know that after owning the F-5 for years that suddenly finding it in this state is a pretty bitter pill. I am a less enthusiastic customer, for certain.

I know this is a bit off topic, but see it positive. This is one of the first fixes/updates that the F-5 got since a long time. It might wasn't the best, but hopefully not the last one we'll see for it. 

[=475FG= Dawger]

2 hours ago, razo+r said:

I know this is a bit off topic, but see it positive. This is one of the first fixes/updates that the F-5 got since a long time. It might wasn't the best, but hopefully not the last one we'll see for it. 

You are a natural optimist. ED spent time "fixing" something that wasn't broken while several things that are actually broken remain untouched on the F-5. It makes me wonder at the motivation behind this change.

This change feels like a knee jerk response to the opponents of the F-5 complaining about it instead of an evaluation on the merits. I have no proof of that, of course. That's just how it feels. It fits with how the air combat simulation community is changing. I sincerely hope I am completely wrong on that aspect of this. However, a regular cheerleader for keeping the F-5 fragile just posted about how the AI F-5 is now a UFO.

[LowRider88]

11 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:It depends on whether or not this particular version of structural limits is going to be applied across the board.

If every module is going to break wings at 1.5 the published limit, it will generate a very different style of gameplay overall in multiplayer. 
Much slower and easier on the ego for many players.

If this standard is going to be haphazardly applied, I would not know the reasoning behind it.

A cynical person might think that making a old module fragile in advance of the release of several aircraft of the same technological era is simply a sales tactic.

I am hoping they just misinterpreted the data and are going to correct it.

I do know that after owning the F-5 for years that suddenly finding it in this state is a pretty bitter pill. I am a less enthusiastic customer, for certain.

I just suggested above that you not quote me to pull me back into the debate again.  And yet, here I am quoting you in return .  Don't mean to be a jerk to you.

Not to start another debate, but for what it's worth, I don't think the F-5E is being singled out and haphazardly targeted here.

Although I have yet to rip the wings off the 5 during hard maneuvers in single player, I have noticed I am able to do this with the MiG-19 in single player.  For the 19, it is even worse.  They rip off right at the G limit of 8, and not 1.5 x that G limit, if I then fire the cannon.  Or they rip off even lower, at 6 G, after having chased something in transonic speed.  I doubt this is realistic as MiG are pretty damage friendly, where they can take hard landings on those very same wings.  I haven't decided whether to raise this as a defect yet, since the 19's FM still appears to be early access, and so I assume the DM is likewise.

Maybe what is missing is some indication and notification that the plane has accumulated some structural damage or is reaching structural limits, like the buffeting during corner speed high AoA.  Then, wing damage like this becomes as manageable as something like a stall or spin, once we know how to avoid it.  For now though I am not sure how resistance or notification like this would be implemented.

For me if this new damage came with some realistic warning indication, I am all for learning a new realistic skill.

 

This may be a bit off topic (don't mean to start another debate).

It is debatable, and to some even controversial about using zoom while in the cockpit.  For me, there is no such thing as air combat binoculars.  Some say they are reasonable because the in game graphics don't do justice the quality of imagery in real life.  I disagree with that.  Why do I need to see the eye brows of the pilot?  I notice the vast majority of youtubers all go nuts with the zoom, while some like GVad are able to do realistic BFM/ACM maneuvers without it.  He sometimes loses the target, but that is what happens in real life.  In comparison, I find his content far more believeable.

To digress, if adding more realism requires learning more skills to cope with the addition of more real life simulated problems, I for one am all for it.  It makes it more fun to learn something more in depth and play.  Much like no one plays nowadays with the silly CoreBlunder style text icons describing the opponents distance and type at 100 nm away.

4 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

You are a natural optimist. ED spent time "fixing" something that wasn't broken while several things that are actually broken remain untouched on the F-5. It makes me wonder at the motivation behind this change.

This change feels like a knee jerk response to the opponents of the F-5 complaining about it instead of an evaluation on the merits. I have no proof of that, of course. That's just how it feels. It fits with how the air combat simulation community is changing. I sincerely hope I am completely wrong on that aspect of this. However, a regular cheerleader for keeping the F-5 fragile just posted about how the AI F-5 is now a UFO.

Try it out yourself.  I just did a realistic scissors fight in a 19 against a Trained level F-18 and won.

Then try the same scissors fight with a F-5E at Rookie level.  See the difference?  The F-5E is a flying like an F-16, or rocket ship, or UFO.

Maybe you should try it out before you comment.  Not doing so just makes you seem emotional and shallow.

[=475FG= Dawger]

4 hours ago, LowRider88 said:

 

Try it out yourself.  I just did a realistic scissors fight in a 19 against a Trained level F-18 and won.

Then try the same scissors fight with a F-5E at Rookie level.  See the difference?  The F-5E is a flying like an F-16, or rocket ship, or UFO.

Maybe you should try it out before you comment.  Not doing so just makes you seem emotional and shallow.

Not that this will make any difference but I made a quick mission today with an ACE AI F-5 and fought him in another F-5 (I am sure this part won't be acceptable but I don't own the Mig 19 and have no plan to.) and the ACE AI wasn't even much of a challenge. Certainly not like ACE AI used to be.

 

[LowRider88]

1 minute ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Not that this will make any difference but I made a quick mission today with an ACE AI F-5 and fought him in another F-5 (I am sure this part won't be acceptable but I don't own the Mig 19 and have no plan to.) and the ACE AI wasn't even much of a challenge. Certainly not like ACE AI used to be.

 

Yes, I would say this is a bit off topic, and does not disprove my findings.

I am also tempted to believe someone more when they own both blue and red for planes, so it is more evident they are more objective and not part of some multiplayer team bias.

[=475FG= Dawger]

5 minutes ago, LowRider88 said:

Yes, I would say this is a bit off topic, and does not disprove my findings.

I am also tempted to believe someone more when they own both blue and red for planes, so it is more evident they are more objective and not part of some multiplayer team bias.

I fly the Mig-21 fairly regularly and the Mig-29 in Alpenwolf's Cold War 1947-1991 server. I also own the Mig-15, MI-8 although they stay in the barn pretty much nowadays. I actually was very interested in the Mig-19 until I discovered its autostart macro file is not accessible to the end user.

So your position is that the F-5 is a UFO when you fly against in the Mig-19 but not a UFO when I fly against in another F-5? Or your position is that the F-5 is a UFO all the time and I am able to beat the ACE AI because I am beneficiary of the UFO FM also?

[LowRider88]

2 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

I fly the Mig-21 fairly regularly and the Mig-29 in Alpenwolf's Cold War 1947-1991 server. I also own the Mig-15, MI-8 although they stay in the barn pretty much nowadays. I actually was very interested in the Mig-19 until I discovered its autostart macro file is not accessible to the end user.

So your position is that the F-5 is a UFO when you fly against in the Mig-19 but not a UFO when I fly against in another F-5? Or your position is that the F-5 is a UFO all the time and I am able to beat the ACE AI because I am beneficiary of the UFO FM also?

In that case, I take that back.  Thanks for the clarity and I admire your balance.

To answer your question, I am not certain.

Given my available spare time, I have tested my described scenario several iterations with the same result, hoping to clarify if I am doing something wrong, or if this is an issue.  What I do know is I held the control variable stable I.e. Player flies MiG-19.  As I said if someone can explain why it is easier to catch and beat an F-18 at Trained level vs F-5 at Rookie level, then that would solve the question.  From what I see now, the F-5 AI is inaccurate and stacked.  I have tested MiG-19 take off distance at max thrust and afterburner and these seem true to the manual, so I am more confident in the 19 player FM than 5's AI FM.

[LowRider88]

2 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

I fly the Mig-21 fairly regularly and the Mig-29 in Alpenwolf's Cold War 1947-1991 server. I also own the Mig-15, MI-8 although they stay in the barn pretty much nowadays. I actually was very interested in the Mig-19 until I discovered its autostart macro file is not accessible to the end user.

So your position is that the F-5 is a UFO when you fly against in the Mig-19 but not a UFO when I fly against in another F-5? Or your position is that the F-5 is a UFO all the time and I am able to beat the ACE AI because I am beneficiary of the UFO FM also?

Since you took care to clarify your stance, I took the times to watch your video just now.  You did a missile kill, when the AI was running, maybe after losing you.  All my tests are with guns only, when the opponent is actively maneuvering.

[Snappy]

On 1/5/2022 at 5:39 AM, =475FG= Dawger said:

It depends on whether or not this particular version of structural limits is going to be applied across the board.

If every module is going to break wings at 1.5 the published limit, it will generate a very different style of gameplay overall in multiplayer. 
Much slower and easier on the ego for many players.

If this standard is going to be haphazardly applied, I would not know the reasoning behind it.

A cynical person might think that making a old module fragile in advance of the release of several aircraft of the same technological era is simply a sales tactic.

I am hoping they just misinterpreted the data and are going to correct it.

I do know that after owning the F-5 for years that suddenly finding it in this state is a pretty bitter pill. I am a less enthusiastic customer, for certain.

Ok thanks for answering. I don't think this is a deliberate ploy by ED to generate more sales for future cold war modules, especially since  of all those cold war modules currently  in developement right now, only one is possibly done by ED themselves and even that is not confirmed at all.
So they'd only get a minor cut indirectly , from the sales of the 3rd party modules that are coming.

While I dont necessarily agree with you on the issue of the actual limit imposed on the F-5, I do agree it would be much much better if ED developed a consistent approach to overstress damage and applied that to all modules / i.e. mandated the same from 3rd party developers. Right now it seems there are huge variations in that.

I think unfortunately this whole thing  is just another sympton of ED being overloaded way beyond their capabilities which results in older modules not getting fixes at all or every once in a while a shoot-from-hip hotfix ,that then requires de-bugging which usually doesnt happen for a long while.

Personally I just gave up on ED a while ago,  the business model is just bad in the long run and likely not sustainable.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Snappy

[=475FG= Dawger]

16 hours ago, LowRider88 said:

Since you took care to clarify your stance, I took the times to watch your video just now.  You did a missile kill, when the AI was running, maybe after losing you.  All my tests are with guns only, when the opponent is actively maneuvering.

So, I woke up this morning and decided to take advantage of the winter sale to put more airplanes in the already full barn. One of them was the Mig-19. Of course, I decided to give it the first try. After installation and a quick skim of the manual, I set up the controls, learned how to start the motors and arm the guns. I taxied, took off, test fired the guns, did a couple hard turns and then hopped into the airstart Mig 19 opposing the same ACE AI F-5 from yesterday.

It seems to be a nice flying fighter, certainly capable of holding its own against its current opponents although its missile capability is extremely limiting.

Here is the video of my first A2A engagement in the Mig-19 versus ACE AI F-5.

 

[LowRider88]

46 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

So, I woke up this morning and decided to take advantage of the winter sale to put more airplanes in the already full barn. One of them was the Mig-19. Of course, I decided to give it the first try. After installation and a quick skim of the manual, I set up the controls, learned how to start the motors and arm the guns. I taxied, took off, test fired the guns, did a couple hard turns and then hopped into the airstart Mig 19 opposing the same ACE AI F-5 from yesterday.

It seems to be a nice flying fighter, certainly capable of holding its own against its current opponents although its missile capability is extremely limiting.

Here is the video of my first A2A engagement in the Mig-19 versus ACE AI F-5.

 

Congratulations on purchasing the 19.  In my opinion it was the most maneuverable fighter of the Vietnam war, when considering both wingloading and thrust to weight ratio.

For my testing, I do not use text icons, so I rely on pure visual.  One thing I like about recent update is It is possible to easily lose F-5 visually, if you get too much separation.

As a result of this, the F-5 got on my tail.  I was able to get him forward in a scissors fight.

However immediately after that,  he blasts into the air and I cannot climb up to follow.

This should not be the case when we are both at stall speed, he should not be able to climb faster with weaker engines.

Also note, I did not use afterburner from the get go, as full max thrust (the other button) should be good enough to match the F-5's weaker T/W.  I started at about 800km, about corner speed.

i would be interested to see you catch up to him with no more than max thrust, once you beat him in a horizontal scissors fight.

Also, I wonder if in some cases, particularly if you are using afterburner on an already weaker T/W opponent, if Ace level could be in this case easier than Trained or Rookie level.  At work now and so can't try it out myself until weekend.

Also, it would be interesting if you can compare scissors fights in the 19 against both F-5 and F-18 at Trained level, and clarify if you see a difference in their performance.

As well, the purpose of this testing is to verify the AI FM, not to brag about a snapshot.  Are you able to get a tracking shot, without afterburner?

Edited January 6, 2022 by LowRider88

[=475FG= Dawger]

9 minutes ago, LowRider88 said:

Congratulations on purchasing the 19.  In my opinion it was the most maneuverable fighter of the Vietnam war, when considering both wingloading and thrust to weight ratio.

For my testing, I do not use text icons, so I rely on pure visual.  One thing I like about recent update is It is possible to easily lose F-5 visually, if you get too much separation.

As a result of this, the F-5 got on my tail.  I was able to get him forward in a scissors fight.

However immediately after that,  he blasts into the air and I cannot climb up to follow.

This should not be the case when we are both at stall speed, he should not be able to climb faster with weaker engines.

Also note, I did not use afterburner from the get go, as full max thrust (the other button) should be good enough to match the F-5's weaker T/W.  I started at about 800km, about corner speed.

i would be interested to see you catch up to him with no more than max thrust, once you beat him in a horizontal scissors fight.

Also, I wonder if in some cases, particularly if you are using afterburner on an already weaker T/W opponent, if Ace level could be in this case easier than Trained or Rookie level.  At work now and so can't try it out myself until weekend.

Also, it would be interesting if you can compare scissors fights in the 19 against both F-5 and F-18 at Trained level, and clarify if you see a difference in their performance.

As well, the purpose of this testing is to verify the AI FM, not to brag about a snapshot.  Are you able to get a tracking shot, without afterburner?

 

I pretty much expected this type of response

Labels on or off has no bearing on whether or not the FM is “UFO like”. For what its, worth they are on because, otherwise, you won’t be able to see the opponent in a YouTube video. Watch any of the other recent videos on my channel and you will see what I mean. 
 

I get the feeling I can post videos until the cows come home and you will just add yet another condition. 

The F-5 AI FM is very clearly not UFO like.
 

You may want to look elsewhere for the source of your trouble. 
 

You should post a video of what you are experiencing so others can give you sone guidance on what you are doing wrong.

 

[LowRider88]

40 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

I pretty much expected this type of response

Labels on or off has no bearing on whether or not the FM is “UFO like”. For what its, worth they are on because, otherwise, you won’t be able to see the opponent in a YouTube video. Watch any of the other recent videos on my channel and you will see what I mean. 
 

I get the feeling I can post videos until the cows come home and you will just add yet another condition. 

The F-5 AI FM is very clearly not UFO like.
 

You may want to look elsewhere for the source of your trouble. 
 

You should post a video of what you are experiencing so others can give you sone guidance on what you are doing wrong.

 

The purpose of trying the test, is to confirm or conflict my assertions, not to post a YouTube video.  I don't need to see the dot which is the F-5 in your video.  I don't even need to see your video, unless you conclusively proof against me.  Of course text icons have no bearing on FM.  Any moron knows that.  Are you afraid to get in a scissors fight with it without afterburner?

So far you have not disproved anything to me.  Even in your last video, the F-5 is out climbing you and recovering from dives better than you.

Hey, you are a good snapshot fighter.  Why don't you level up and turn off the text icons?

 

And for the record, as I understand it, it is possible for DCS AI FMs to vary from player FM.

You are putting in so much effort here because you are afraid I am trying to take performance away from your gameplay, which I am trying to improve the game in general.  Don't take it so personally.

Edited January 6, 2022 by LowRider88

[=475FG= Dawger]

5 hours ago, LowRider88 said:

The purpose of trying the test, is to confirm or conflict my assertions, not to post a YouTube video.  I don't need to see the dot which is the F-5 in your video.  I don't even need to see your video, unless you conclusively proof against me.  Of course text icons have no bearing on FM.  Any moron knows that.  Are you afraid to get in a scissors fight with it without afterburner?

So far you have not disproved anything to me.  Even in your last video, the F-5 is out climbing you and recovering from dives better than you.

Hey, you are a good snapshot fighter.  Why don't you level up and turn off the text icons?

 

And for the record, as I understand it, it is possible for DCS AI FMs to vary from player FM.

You are putting in so much effort here because you are afraid I am trying to take performance away from your gameplay, which I am trying to improve the game in general.  Don't take it so personally.

 

While I am sure you will still have a litany of excuses and reasons, here is yet another video demonstrating that the F-5 AI is not UFO like, even with labels off. I spent a lot of time in idle at the top of the climbs while the poor F-5 was struggling in afterburner. It was tough to not shoot during the dozen or so shot opportunities. You can see after letting the F-5 extend away I had no problem re-engaging and getting back in the saddle on him.

I am starting to find this a bit amusing.

 

[LowRider88]

19 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

While I am sure you will still have a litany of excuses and reasons, here is yet another video demonstrating that the F-5 AI is not UFO like, even with labels off. I spent a lot of time in idle at the top of the climbs while the poor F-5 was struggling in afterburner. It was tough to not shoot during the dozen or so shot opportunities. You can see after letting the F-5 extend away I had no problem re-engaging and getting back in the saddle on him.

I am starting to find this a bit amusing.

 

I also find it amusing, that you had to do so many videos.  Who told you to knee jerk and jump right in emotionally and begin the test without first the basic step of requirements gathering?  What scientific method are you accustomed to?  Your first video was a waste because it was not even related.  You send one was a waste because you were also using the wrong parameters.

This video is exactly what I am referring to.  How long did it take you? 13 mins with most of the time you being well far away, with the 5 out of your cone of fire.  Because it is retaining so much more speed than you and climbing better with weaker engines.  I flew the same with the 5.  Then I flew the same with the F-18 and there was much less vertical and horizontal separation.

Also, with your useless music, I can't hear anything.  Can't tell if you used afterburner or not.  If you are confident, post the track.

 

Try it again now with the with the F-18.  See whether it is climbing as high or takes as long to shoot down.

 

And, BTW, if you have a shot, take it.  I never said you couldn't.  I just said it is pointless to proove you can get on its tail with ACM/BFM with wide angle snapshots.  If you are behind the guy and tracking, just shoot.  So far I saw you overshooting most of the time.

[=475FG= Dawger]

11 hours ago, LowRider88 said:

I also find it amusing, that you had to do so many videos.  Who told you to knee jerk and jump right in emotionally and begin the test without first the basic step of requirements gathering?  What scientific method are you accustomed to?  Your first video was a waste because it was not even related.  You send one was a waste because you were also using the wrong parameters.

This video is exactly what I am referring to.  How long did it take you? 13 mins with most of the time you being well far away, with the 5 out of your cone of fire.  Because it is retaining so much more speed than you and climbing better with weaker engines.  I flew the same with the 5.  Then I flew the same with the F-18 and there was much less vertical and horizontal separation.

Also, with your useless music, I can't hear anything.  Can't tell if you used afterburner or not.  If you are confident, post the track.

 

Try it again now with the with the F-18.  See whether it is climbing as high or takes as long to shoot down.

 

And, BTW, if you have a shot, take it.  I never said you couldn't.  I just said it is pointless to proove you can get on its tail with ACM/BFM with wide angle snapshots.  If you are behind the guy and tracking, just shoot.  So far I saw you overshooting most of the time.

All you have done here is proven you know absolutely nothing about BFM. Your assertions are unrealistic expectations born of total ignorance of the subject at hand. And I mean that in the nicest way possible. You need a good instructor to teach you Basic Fighter Maneuver. 

 

[LowRider88]

2 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

All you have done here is proven you know absolutely nothing about BFM. Your assertions are unrealistic expectations born of total ignorance of the subject at hand. And I mean that in the nicest way possible. You need a good instructor to teach you Basic Fighter Maneuver. 

 

Don't be sarcastic.  If you mean to troll just admit it, instead of pretending to be nice.

I have proven no less than you.  You ultimately did not take up the replication of my scenario.  So who are you?  You have not proven to me that you are the definitive source to exclaim there is nothing to enhance in the AI FM.  You just posted elsewhere that you admittted the AI FM is flawed.  So what the hell is your stance?  Where is your track?  Where is your comparison between F-5 vs F18?

I still haven't seen you in a low altitude, low speed horizontals scissors against either plane and the resulting zoom climb out of 400kph from either of them against you.  In terms of ignorance.  You numerous YouTube attempts shows you lack of understanding.

[Sarge55]

I suggest hand bags at 5 paces girls...

Stop posting your petty differences here please or take it off line, it's wasting my time when I see a new post in the thread and I have this drivel to wade through.

[LowRider88]

8 hours ago, Sarge55 said:

I suggest hand bags at 5 paces girls...

Stop posting your petty differences here please or take it off line, it's wasting my time when I see a new post in the thread and I have this drivel to wade through.

No one said you had to read it.  Instead you jump in with your own handbag.  I am looking to address issues with the game.  At least the other guy was offering some form of insight.  You bring nothing.  That is drivel.

[Sarge55]

That maybe how you started but it’s not reflected in your recent post now is it?

just saying you need to take step back and get back on track. 

[LowRider88]

8 hours ago, Sarge55 said:

That maybe how you started but it’s not reflected in your recent post now is it?

just saying you need to take step back and get back on track. 

Well then you should have said that in the beginning instead of being sarcastic.  You didn't say any of this in your first post.

In this case, you are right.  I just felt the other guy could have approached it more objectively at the beginning as well.  Instead he was trying to close off my question prematurely even before properly understanding the setup of my test, and I got sucked into the subtle oneupsmanship of his videos.

Point taken.

[Sarge55]

Hmmm probably right. Point taken.