Some love incoming!

[nessuno0505]

Il 22/11/2024 at 16:58, snocc_ ha scritto:

extremely sad update tbh. 10 extra dollars if you own it and a jacked up price if you dont for stuff that boils down to bug fixes and textures just makes ED look bad. maybe if a new F-5 was developed like with the A-10C2 or BS3 it'd be a good upgrade module and be worth more money but the newsletter makes it sound like it'll just be the same F-5E-3 as always and that's a shame

There are bugs that have not been solved for centuries, if paying 10 bucks serves to get a module back on track, better this way than seeing it rot forever.

[snocc_]

hace 19 horas, nessuno0505 dijo:

There are bugs that have not been solved for centuries, if paying 10 bucks serves to get a module back on track, better this way than seeing it rot forever.

you shouldn't have to pay extra for the module you already bought to work properly after so long. Either way it was already cleared up that the bug fixes and problem solving will also come for free to the people who only own the original F-5E module so it's a non-issue

 

i still find the upgrade package sad, now it seems to just ammount to a 3d model and texture pass which, while nice, still doesn't bring any new product really worth paying for and is a treatment new and old modules from less capable 3rd parties have gotten for free. I would've been more than happy to pay 3 times the price if it had introduced a new version even with minimal changes like an earlier basic F-5E-2 to complement the F-5E-3 similarly to what has been the case already with the A-10C2 and BS3 upgrades, in comparison this one just brings an opportunity to pay for no new additions to the sim and has worked to fuel the recent rumours of financial struggle in ED, considering recent events of issues with payment to 3rd parties and with some of the recent ED releases feeling rushed and being far from the quality of earlier EA releases overall it makes me worried for DCS's future and it makes me sad for ED's current state

 

If ED really is struggling for money i would much rather be able to donate directly than have to sit through disappointing practices and seemingly poor management like this

Edited November 25, 2024 by snocc_
similarly

[Mr_sukebe]

???

You don’t HAVE to buy it, simple as

[_BringTheReign_]

3 hours ago, snocc_ said:

I would've been more than happy to pay 3 times the price if it had introduced a new version even with minimal changes like an earlier basic F-5E-2 to complement the F-5E-3 similarly to what has been the case already with the A-10C2 and BS3 upgrades,

I feel similarly that the A-10C II and BS3 upgrades brought additional capability. It feels like it would have been a home run to include a Refueling Probe and QMCS upgrades with the LDP's allowing for 4x AIM-9M/L with LAU-100(M)/101(M). Those changes are certified by the USAF and do not require any cockpit changes whatsoever (besides maybe one switch for the probe). 

[Schmidtfire]

I hope some work has been done to the radar, both visually and functionality wise.

This thread is over 6 years old.

   
Expanded weapons and a refueling probe would be nice. But at the end of the day, the basic systems needs to be on a new level
for this module to be truly called "Remastered".
 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

15 hours ago, Schmidtfire said:

I hope some work has been done to the radar

No need for hope, just read the initial announcement  

[Bucic]

6 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

No need for hope, just read the initial announcement  

There have been some significant fixes to the F-5E radar some 2 months ago. Check out the changelog.

[Schmidtfire]

57 minutes ago, Bucic said:

There have been some significant fixes to the F-5E radar some 2 months ago. Check out the changelog.

Significant changes or not. It's still looking like something from FC3, visually very simplified.

[Bucic]

9 minutes ago, Schmidtfire said:

Significant changes or not. It's still looking like something from FC3, visually very simplified.

Your previous post read: "I hope some work has been done to the radar, both visually and functionality wise."

My recent post read: Some work has been done, even prior to the Upgrade.

[snocc_]

En 25/11/2024 a las 22:14, _BringTheReign_ dijo:

I feel similarly that the A-10C II and BS3 upgrades brought additional capability. It feels like it would have been a home run to include a Refueling Probe and QMCS upgrades with the LDP's allowing for 4x AIM-9M/L with LAU-100(M)/101(M). Those changes are certified by the USAF and do not require any cockpit changes whatsoever (besides maybe one switch for the probe). 

all i've seen on the capability to take 4 aim-9s is that it was tested but quickly dropped due to flutter issues with the sidewinder rails, though apparently the tiger 3 upgrade and the F-5EM fixed this problem by using different IAI pylons for python capability under the wings. Maybe that's a good choice for a 4 missile F-5, would be cool to see but would also be a bigger undertaking for ED

 

personally i'd rather see an older F-5 first so we can finish filling out conflicts like vietnam or iran-iraq but honestly any extra F-5 version ED could make would be greatly appreciated for a package like this

Edited November 26, 2024 by snocc_
personal opinion

[Kev2go]

would of loved to see an upgrade to a proper swiss F5E/ USN F5N type which would be same as now, just with new digital radios and a INS. This is the version that should have been modelled to begin with as aggressor F5E's in the US air force or US navy didnt have RWR or countermeasures mounted. ALR87 rwr  are a development/variation of AL46 meant for the swiss air force, abd the US would not have these until the the US navy manage to arrange some buybacks from the swiss circa early 2000s. Although with the new external model already having some changes to airframe like the new dorsal antenna associated with the new radios, so it would be unusual to have these external 3d model additions without planning to change avionics of the internal cockpit.

Edited November 27, 2024 by Kev2go

[twistking]

6 hours ago, Kev2go said:

would of loved to see an upgrade to a proper swiss F5E/ USN F5N type which would be same as now, just with new digital radios and a INS. This is the version that should have been modelled to begin with as aggressor F5E's in the US air force or US navy didnt have RWR or countermeasures mounted. ALR87 rwr  are a development/variation of AL46 meant for the swiss air force, abd the US would not have these until the the US navy manage to arrange some buybacks from the swiss circa early 2000s. Although with the new external model already having some changes to airframe like the new dorsal antenna associated with the new radios, so it would be unusual to have these external 3d model additions without planning to change avionics of the internal cockpit.

Good point. The dorsal antennas that are clearly visible in the promotional material, would only make sense for the upgraded airframes.

[Schmidtfire]

12 hours ago, Kev2go said:

would of loved to see an upgrade to a proper swiss F5E/ USN F5N type which would be same as now, just with new digital radios and a INS. This is the version that should have been modelled to begin with as aggressor F5E's in the US air force or US navy didnt have RWR or countermeasures mounted. ALR87 rwr  are a development/variation of AL46 meant for the swiss air force, abd the US would not have these until the the US navy manage to arrange some buybacks from the swiss circa early 2000s. Although with the new external model already having some changes to airframe like the new dorsal antenna associated with the new radios, so it would be unusual to have these external 3d model additions without planning to change avionics of the internal cockpit.

On the other hand, not having INS is a big plus with the current configuration. Just a bunch of extra work and time getting the thing aligned 
But yeah, new radios would be nice.

[_BringTheReign_]

USAF Tactical Missile Technical Coordinating Group Quad Missile Carriage System (QMCS) allows the F-5 aircraft to carry four (4) AIM-9L/M Sidewinders on the Lightweight Low Drag LAU-100(M)/101(M) Pylons on the wings and outboard pylons. 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 28, 2024 by _BringTheReign_
text

[Kev2go]

On 11/28/2024 at 9:35 AM, _BringTheReign_ said:

USAF Tactical Missile Technical Coordinating Group Quad Missile Carriage System (QMCS) allows the F-5 aircraft to carry four (4) AIM-9L/M Sidewinders on the Lightweight Low Drag LAU-100(M)/101(M) Pylons on the wings and outboard pylons. 

 

 

 

 

I don't think this ever actually implemented. its not in the USAF F5E dash 1', Dash 34's or natops F5E/F/N manuals.....The above excerpt is just from a defense contractor's website trying to advertise upgrades for potential users of the F5 Tiger platform. 

https://www.tigercenturyaircraft.com/products

The only "upgrade" from that list that i can tell was documented in USAF and USN F5 manuals the W6 LERX or IHQ, which is what F5E-3 models were installed with from the factory, but the above defense contractor advertises a retrofit program for older airframes pre F5E3.

Otherwise its like the similar sort argumentation was made by the community to include stingers on the Ah64D, stuff that could theoretically be added, but wasn't by ED because US armed forces never actually used such a modification. a X4 sidewinder configuration would make more sense as a community mod.
 

Edited December 1, 2024 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

The only thing i found regarding platform upgrades to remaining agressor  F5N's all pertain to updated avionics, such as  replacing radar display scope for a multifunction display. Based on the photos it appears to also have GPS aided navigation and its own Nav page, but its definitely a later upgrade as its not in the 2006 natops. Otherwise the only valid air to air armament are only for the wingtips.

 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2024 by Kev2go

[BalkanBattler]

On 12/1/2024 at 5:32 PM, Kev2go said:

I don't think this ever actually implemented. its not in the USAF F5E dash 1', Dash 34's or natops F5E/F/N manuals.....The above excerpt is just from a defense contractor's website trying to advertise upgrades for potential users of the F5 Tiger platform. 

TCA is run by Northrop Chief Engineer Andrew Skow - what they now sell are options Northrop used to offer from factory. 
Northrop doesn't build the F-5 anymore, so they can't offer these products and services. That's why TCA exists. 
They're not really upgrades - they are factory options that can be applied after-the-fact. The QMCS wasn't designed or engineered by TCA, it was made by Northrop for their F-5 series. I know this sounds like semantics, and even their own website is confusing - there just isn't that much data out there on the open internet. But if you talk to these guys, these were standard options, like the refueling probe, like the INS, like the Maverick capability. Northrop was happy to do quad carry, it was tested and certified by the USAF and purchased/implemented by customers. 

Also, there are images out there of F-5's with 4x sidewinders, like the Swiss birds for example. So the US F-5's are capable, with the right pylon. 
It's like the Heatblur F-4E and the AIM-7M - all that was required was a pylon change, so they implemented it because that was what is best for the community. That's all the people are asking here - the evidence has been provided, it's just a matter of implementation. 

I would understand the apache argument because they said they're making a very specific version of the apache. But I ask this: what version of the F-5 do we have in DCS? It's not a USAF F-5E, because the F-5E didn't have this RWR, only the Swiss F-5E had this RWR. We don't have a Swiss F-5E, because the Swiss F-5E had the digital radios and INS from factory. We don't have a USN Swiss buyback F-5N for the same reasons. So what variant do we have? It's not an F-5E-3, it's a franken-jet. 

Let's keep on this train of thought with the Swiss F-5E's and implement the quad carry, INS and radios. Call it a Swiss F-5E and forget about the F-5N (which was further modified beyond the Swiss jets with new displays and MFD's and all that crap)

ED should be able to talk to a few of the Swiss guys, isn't ED based out of Switzerland after all? 


lol

[Kev2go]

On 1/14/2025 at 4:31 PM, BalkanBattler said:

 

It's not an F-5E-3, it's a franken-jet. 

 

F5E-3 is simply the airframe.  You can have F5E-3 airframe with various features. It just wont be accurate for an USAF aggressor model for an F5E3 to have  ALR87 RWR and Countermeasures. Only the swiss buybacks in the navy had those circa 2006.

 

On 1/14/2025 at 4:31 PM, BalkanBattler said:

 

Let's keep on this train of thought with the Swiss F-5E's and implement the quad carry, INS and radios.

 

The buyback Swiss F5E's that the US navy received must not have been the quad rail variants( most photos of Swiss F5's only have wingtip mounts), because its not in the 2006 natops. Only wingtip sidewinder mounts are considered valid for a US aggressor based on that publication. With the Aim7M on the F4E you mentioned wasn't done simply because the community wanted it. Even if in practice F4 squadrons didn't have Aim7M's issued in stock,  IT is at least referenced in some of the later published manuals  and is therefore valid. IRRC the F4E 1990 dash 1 has Aim7M in the stores loading section.  Can't say the same for the F5E swiss buybacks and the additional aim9 rails.

On 1/14/2025 at 4:31 PM, BalkanBattler said:

 

Call it a Swiss F-5E and forget about the F-5N (which was further modified beyond the Swiss jets with new displays and MFD's and all that crap)

 

F5N didnt get upgraded with new features until later. A circa 2006 era F5N as per the natops has the exact same avionics as the Swiss F5E models. 

 

IF you really want quad rails without having another franken bird as a US operated agressor F5,  best compromise would be to just split it into 2 versions. Swiss F5E3 and then F5N, with the only difference being quad rails and the nation its flown by. Not a big deal for ED since they have done so with other modules. There are 2 versions of the P51D , and 3 versions of the P47D both of which have such minor variations.

Edited January 16 by Kev2go

[BalkanBattler]

18 hours ago, Kev2go said:

IF you really want quad rails without having another franken bird as a US operated agressor F5,  best compromise would be to just split it into 2 versions. Swiss F5E3 and then F5N, with the only difference being quad rails and the nation its flown by. Not a big deal for ED since they have done so with other modules. There are 2 versions of the P51D , and 3 versions of the P47D both of which have such minor variations.

I 100% agree with you here. This is a great suggestion. 

Also Wags posted this in discord today:

"We are certainly open to adding INS and the digital radio stack, but so far we've been unable to find any good data on these. It's our goal to create an accurate simulation of the Swiss F-5E that were then later operated as aggressors"
 

Edited January 16 by BalkanBattler

[goofball]

Now that they drop the F-35 all is out of the window in terms of represented versions, capabilities, accuracy and realism.. I guess that we can ask for the F-5 everybody deserves..

[Brk195]

2 hours ago, goofball said:

Now that they drop the F-35 all is out of the window in terms of represented versions, capabilities, accuracy and realism.. I guess that we can ask for the F-5 everybody deserves..

This 100% I feel like the F-35 announcement opens us up to having a bit more flexibility with older modules even though I would argue that was already the case with the Ka-50 and it’s extra pilons.

[Bucic]

7 hours ago, Brk195 said:

This 100% I feel like the F-35 announcement opens us up to having a bit more flexibility with older modules even though I would argue that was already the case with the Ka-50 and it’s extra pilons.

Moving from strict modeling of aircraft to strict modeling of systems seams reasonable with no harm done to reputation.

[BalkanBattler]

On 1/17/2025 at 3:44 AM, Bucic said:

Moving from strict modeling of aircraft to strict modeling of systems seams reasonable with no harm done to reputation.

yes, especially because the ENTIRE POINT of the F-5E Tiger II was as an export fighter - all of these features were factory options that were built in the factory and exported to end customers:

Aerial Refueling Probe
Mavericks 
JATO
INS

For example, Saudi's had all of the above included in the model of F-5E cockpit and external model we have now. It's a couple of switches and some lines of code for multiple systems we already have in DCS. And the systems for these are publicly available in the TO dash one for the F-5E (I)

We're not asking for a brazilian glass cockpit here. We want an F-5E! Not an F-5N, not an F-5M

Like we're asking for stuff that was 100% certified, USED IN COMBAT on the F-5E by export customers. You don't even need to remove anything from the cockipt as it is right now to make these changes... the panel slot for JATO for example is empty right now. You just need to put a switch there and voila. Same with the Aerial Refueling panel: right now ittt's a box for gloves. Not exactly critical stuff.

ED we just want an F-5E export fighter with the options, not an F-5N