Coming DCS F-5E Update Wishlist Thread

[_BringTheReign_]

First and foremost on everyone's mind, and a bare minimum for any F-5E update:

• Bug fixes
  • Crushing of the longstanding bugs
  • Throttle scheduling
  • RWR
  • HSI
  • Instrument Drift
  • Flight model inaccuracies
  • Etc (add below)
• New Art
  • Cockpit improvements to be up to par with existing ED modules
  • Possibly cockpit dimensions for simpit builders (pretty please?)

 

Wishlist items

• Refueling Probe
  • Would allow for longer range missions
  • Would enable more variety in mission planning
• Maverick capability
  • Allow for greater potency in ground attack role
  • Would incentivize more sales of the F-5E module
• 4x AIM-9 stations
  • Some F-5E's were wired for AIM-9's on the outboard wing pylons
  • Would enable more for a dedicated A2A loadout
• Gunpods
  • F-5E's were tested and could carry a 30MM gunpod
• Napalm
  • When this gets added to DCS, would be great to see for the F-5E as well

 

If the F-5E only includes bugfixes/new art, this should be a free/regular update.

 

If the F-5E update includes new capability as per the list above, a conceivable $10 chargeable upgrade is acceptable.

[Germane]

I would add the rework of the radar to that list

[SkateZilla]

On 7/5/2022 at 10:58 AM, _BringTheReign_ said:

First and foremost on everyone's mind, and a bare minimum for any F-5E update:

• Bug fixes
  • Crushing of the longstanding bugs
  • Throttle scheduling
  • RWR
  • HSI
  • Instrument Drift
  • Flight model inaccuracies
  • Etc (add below)
• New Art
  • Cockpit improvements to be up to par with existing ED modules
  • Possibly cockpit dimensions for simpit builders (pretty please?)

 

Wishlist items

• Refueling Probe
  • Would allow for longer range missions
  • Would enable more variety in mission planning
• Maverick capability
  • Allow for greater potency in ground attack role
  • Would incentivize more sales of the F-5E module
• 4x AIM-9 stations
  • Some F-5E's were wired for AIM-9's on the outboard wing pylons
  • Would enable more for a dedicated A2A loadout
• Gunpods
  • F-5E's were tested and could carry a 30MM gunpod
• Napalm
  • When this gets added to DCS, would be great to see for the F-5E as well

 

If the F-5E only includes bugfixes/new art, this should be a free/regular update.

 

If the F-5E update includes new capability as per the list above, a conceivable $10 chargeable upgrade is acceptable.

Most of those were export and late F-5E items, not on the Block they are modelling.


As for the F-5E Update, IIRC its already been stated to only be Artwork and bug fixes.

[Stratos]

For me, the option to select the HGU-2 as pilot helmet. Used by many nations, and specially Iran.

 

[USA_Recon]

On 8/25/2022 at 12:48 AM, SkateZilla said:

Most of those were export and late F-5E items, not on the Block they are modelling.


As for the F-5E Update, IIRC its already been stated to only be Artwork and bug fixes.

Darn.  Maybe ED can try to attain legendary status of 3rd party devs who care about their customer and often provide multiple models and variations.  Sadly no   Feels like that got my cash and that was that when it comes to the red headed stepchild of the F-5

[pabletesoy]

A good cockpit environment that serves as a basis for the rest of the aircraft; heat, cold, humidity, frost, etc. and affects the pilot.

Missed in DCS (except in JF17)

[PetRock]

On 8/24/2022 at 9:48 PM, SkateZilla said:

Most of those were export and late F-5E items, not on the Block they are modelling.


As for the F-5E Update, IIRC its already been stated to only be Artwork and bug fixes.

With respect, this position is now unrealistic, and certainly not what I would advocate for now, or going forward, for any module in DCS.

Modeling a single jet, on an exact date, operated by a single operator, rather than an exemplar example for that era that best captures all the used and implemented capabilities, especially those that were implemented by a large percentage of its operators during its storied service life, is where we should be going. ED and many 3rd party devs have already de-facto committed to this "exemplar" philosophy, like with the Harrier, and even the F-16 (x4 HARMS for example). We, your customers, are quite literally begging for the F5-E that could be and that we will happily pay for it!

With the coming wave of more gen 3/3+ cold war jets coming to DCS, interest in an iconic jet from that era like the F-5E, is going to only grow but to offer the F-5E as it is now will feel flat and disappointing.

Give it the A-10C and the BS 2/3 treatment! We totally understand that a remake of this magnitude isn't cheap, but again, we, your customers, are telling you (ED) that we would be more than happy to pay for a high quality remake and fleshing out of such an iconic aircraft. You are only leaving money on the table.

[_BringTheReign_]

15 hours ago, PetRock said:

With the coming wave of more gen 3/3+ cold war jets coming to DCS, interest in an iconic jet from that era like the F-5E, is going to only grow but to offer the F-5E as it is now will feel flat and disappointing.

Give it the A-10C and the BS 2/3 treatment! We totally understand that a remake of this magnitude isn't cheap, but again, we, your customers, are telling you (ED) that we would be more than happy to pay for a high quality remake and fleshing out of such an iconic aircraft. You are only leaving money on the table.

Couldn't have said it better myself, amen!

[WRCRob]

hell at this point I would just take the bug fixes and pay $10 the AAR probe as an option ala JF-17 and some model cleanup. 

Edited November 28, 2022 by WRCRob

[Rakkis]

I think bug fixes, a little facelift, AAR Probe, 4x AIM-9, and Maverick integration is a reasonable ask for $10-15.

[Bucic]

Hi!

Is there a thread dedicated to F-5E flight model inacuracies? If not, could you please drop a rough list or keywords to look for on the forums?

[Ironious]

I wish for a louder Sidewinder tone so I can hear it.

Yes, I know how to turn it louder.

[Stackup]

On 11/1/2022 at 5:27 PM, PetRock said:

With respect, this position is now unrealistic, and certainly not what I would advocate for now, or going forward, for any module in DCS.

Modeling a single jet, on an exact date, operated by a single operator, rather than an exemplar example for that era that best captures all the used and implemented capabilities, especially those that were implemented by a large percentage of its operators during its storied service life, is where we should be going. ED and many 3rd party devs have already de-facto committed to this "exemplar" philosophy, like with the Harrier, and even the F-16 (x4 HARMS for example). We, your customers, are quite literally begging for the F5-E that could be and that we will happily pay for it!

With the coming wave of more gen 3/3+ cold war jets coming to DCS, interest in an iconic jet from that era like the F-5E, is going to only grow but to offer the F-5E as it is now will feel flat and disappointing.

Give it the A-10C and the BS 2/3 treatment! We totally understand that a remake of this magnitude isn't cheap, but again, we, your customers, are telling you (ED) that we would be more than happy to pay for a high quality remake and fleshing out of such an iconic aircraft. You are only leaving money on the table.

Completely agree.  If they are going to go back and update it it should get the A-10C/BS3 treatment as so far that is how they have given older modules a facelift.  I'd love to see the F-5E get everything it possibly could in the export versions and in use by other countries as options as well as the requisite bug-fixes of course.  I mean we already have a system that lets mission makers limit weapon loadouts and with the controversy surrounding the BS3's wingtip Iglas (I believe they were only on paper/prototype?), the F-5 should definitely get all its optional systems like the AAR probe, extra radio, and other weapon systems that it actually had access to in real life.  To do anything less is really ridiculous given what they have done for other modules.  I would definitely pay another $10-$15 for this kind of upgrade.

[Northstar98]

On 11/1/2022 at 10:27 PM, PetRock said:

With respect, this position is now unrealistic, and certainly not what I would advocate for now, or going forward, for any module in DCS.

Modeling a single jet, on an exact date, operated by a single operator, rather than an exemplar example for that era that best captures all the used and implemented capabilities, especially those that were implemented by a large percentage of its operators during its storied service life, is where we should be going.

Eh? How is it unrealistic, like at all? While only having one very specific aircraft and no variants is absolutely less than ideal (personally, because it doesn't lend itself to a comprehensive experience and often I'd like to have accurate variants for my scenarios), it does make sense to do it that way - it manages scope, gives you a clear and well-defined end state to the module, simplifies research and falls in line with the entire goal of DCS, according to its own product description.

Especially, when you consider that we have more than enough trouble as it is getting modules completed and working properly for features fully within scope, without needing to dramatically expand it and that's after you consider that we have items that have either been axed or weren't planned to begin with, despite falling well within the narrow scope of some modules (especially the F-16 and F/A-18).

Surely, if we're having such a problem getting aircraft completed as it is, the last thing we should be doing is piling on more and more features, when we haven't even got the ones we already have working properly? Surely, if anything is 'unrealistic' it's vastly adding to the scope, when we have enough trouble with the scope as is.

On 11/1/2022 at 10:27 PM, PetRock said:

ED and many 3rd party devs have already de-facto committed to this "exemplar" philosophy, like with the Harrier, and even the F-16 (x4 HARMS for example).

The Harrier is weird because they initially went with a mid-ish 2000 version but then later on changed its scope to the 2010s. IMO, what they should've done is make 2 distinct variants, instead of making a hybrid. This way both sides of the aisle are happy with the minimum amount of compromises, even if the 2 aircraft are largely copied and pasted from each other.

Taking Wags at his word, the 4 HARMs thing is in scope for the module - it isn't inaccuracy.

If they wanted to make multiple versions of the F-5, then I'd absolutely be happy with that and it keeps everybody happy with the least amount of compromises. What I don't want is taking an aircraft and trying to fudge its way into trying to represent everything, while being accurate to nothing, especially given the above.

Edited January 18, 2023 by Northstar98
grammar

[Bucic]

On 1/17/2023 at 2:07 PM, Northstar98 said:

Especially, when you consider that we have more than enough trouble as it is getting modules completed and working properly for features fully within scope, without needing to dramatically expand it and that's after you consider that we have items that have either been axed or weren't planned to begin with, despite falling well within the narrow scope of some modules (especially the F-16 and F/A-18).

This! Isn't there a separate forum section for people who like fantasizing? ED does specific variants and in some cases even specific sub-variants. Period. If they diverge from the rule it's just a singular case. Same for most of the 3rd party modules.

[Thamiel]

I would like to opt for a simple NVG on the helmet. Once there was a mod available for just that reason but an integrated solution would be prettier. Also, its not really part of the aircraft, but of pilot equipment and regarding the time frame, even the Hind has it modelled.

[SOLIDKREATE]

I’d like to see sub variants like the F-5A and F-5C.

[FlankerKiller]

On 7/5/2022 at 10:58 AM, _BringTheReign_ said:

First and foremost on everyone's mind, and a bare minimum for any F-5E update:

• Bug fixes
  • Crushing of the longstanding bugs
  • Throttle scheduling
  • RWR
  • HSI
  • Instrument Drift
  • Flight model inaccuracies
  • Etc (add below)
• New Art
  • Cockpit improvements to be up to par with existing ED modules
  • Possibly cockpit dimensions for simpit builders (pretty please?)

 

Wishlist items

• Refueling Probe
  • Would allow for longer range missions
  • Would enable more variety in mission planning
• Maverick capability
  • Allow for greater potency in ground attack role
  • Would incentivize more sales of the F-5E module
• 4x AIM-9 stations
  • Some F-5E's were wired for AIM-9's on the outboard wing pylons
  • Would enable more for a dedicated A2A loadout
• Gunpods
  • F-5E's were tested and could carry a 30MM gunpod
• Napalm
  • When this gets added to DCS, would be great to see for the F-5E as well

 

If the F-5E only includes bugfixes/new art, this should be a free/regular update.

 

If the F-5E update includes new capability as per the list above, a conceivable $10 chargeable upgrade is acceptable.

Doing an F-5 expansion pack would be easy mony for ED. Maybe and F-5A like the ones flown in Vietnam. Just a light weight knife fighter, and a later export version with the updates you mentioned. Something to give it a little more teeth. 

[SOLIDKREATE]

On 7/7/2023 at 12:37 PM, FlankerKiller said:

Doing an F-5 expansion pack would be easy mony for ED. Maybe and F-5A like the ones flown in Vietnam. Just a light weight knife fighter, and a later export version with the updates you mentioned. Something to give it a little more teeth. 

 

Yeah the 'Skoshi Tigers' would be cool but they only made 12 of them and I do not know if alot of data exists. I'm thinking for packs, so to speak, as this:

• F-5A Freedom Fighter (there's quite a bit of differences from the E).
• NF-5A (Subtle differences, like swapable wing tanks for AIM-9 racks and ECM).
• F-5E Tiger III (as used by the Chilean AF / Brazilian F-5EM).
• F-5TH Super Tigris (can carry Python-4, AGM-65, Shrikes and much more.).  -  https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2016/06/05/f-5e-tiger-ii-f-5t-tigris-of-the-royal-thai-air-force/

I think these will cover most of the conflicts we have maps for.

Edited July 8, 2023 by SOLIDKREATE

[FlankerKiller]

I think the Schoshi Tigers flew basic F-5As. It was basically a marketing ploy. Even though there were those that wanted adoption to help fight the NVA's migs, and the ARMY wanted it for CAS work. The

F-5TH would be an amazing asset in DCS. You could do some exciting missions with that one. 

[SOLIDKREATE]

4 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

I think the Schoshi Tigers flew basic F-5As. It was basically a marketing ploy. Even though there were those that wanted adoption to help fight the NVA's migs, and the ARMY wanted it for CAS work. The

F-5TH would be an amazing asset in DCS. You could do some exciting missions with that one. 

Yes you are coprrect:

"The F-5C was the designation given to the modified F-5A's that were sent to Southeast Asia during the mid-60's for the Skoshi Tiger program, a combat evaluation of the F-5 in Vietnam. The name is a corruption of "Sukoshi Tiger" (Japanese for "Little Tiger"). The Skoshi Tiger Program was originally known as the Sparrow Hawk Program. Project Sparrow Hawk at Eglin AFB, Florida had proven that the F-5 was a capable fighter-bomber. The primary modification from the F-5A was the addition of an in-flight refueling [IFR] probe to the F-5C.".

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-5c.htm

 

 

[marcoscosta]

a non-glass wing would be very nice

[FlankerKiller]

17 hours ago, SOLIDKREATE said:

Yes you are coprrect:

"The F-5C was the designation given to the modified F-5A's that were sent to Southeast Asia during the mid-60's for the Skoshi Tiger program, a combat evaluation of the F-5 in Vietnam. The name is a corruption of "Sukoshi Tiger" (Japanese for "Little Tiger"). The Skoshi Tiger Program was originally known as the Sparrow Hawk Program. Project Sparrow Hawk at Eglin AFB, Florida had proven that the F-5 was a capable fighter-bomber. The primary modification from the F-5A was the addition of an in-flight refueling [IFR] probe to the F-5C.".

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-5c.htm

 

 

So yeah, an in flight refueling probe. You could. Make it an option like the Jeff. 

17 hours ago, marcoscosta said:

a non-glass wing would be very nice

Honestly I think Bellsimteck had the right idea with the saber. After a certain point bend the jet. The more bent the more you have to correct it. Heatblur also had the right idea make over G damage cumulative. If there was an API to combine the two it would be an awesome improvement to DCS. The F-5 would be the perfect test bed for something like that. 

Edited July 9, 2023 by FlankerKiller

[=475FG= Dawger]

2 hours ago, marcoscosta said:

a non-glass wing would be very nice

Amen

[Gotcha]

To be added to the list, the F5-E in DCS is "underengined", or in other words, offers less engine power and acceleration/velocity behavior than the real F5-E performance.

But please, maintains the F5-E classic cockpit and the other stuffs. It's a lovely classic fighter.