What has happened to the update ?

[RustBelt]

On 11/28/2023 at 4:32 AM, PetRock said:

While shrikes would be completely a-historical, Taiwan and Saudi Arabia used EO Mavericks on their F-5Es for a long time. If the F-5E is going to get a full rework on the level of the A-10C II and Ka-50 BS 2/3, I would shoot for one of those. Mission maker option for x4 winders, and EO mavericks (in addition to the long standing bugs and inaccuracies of the current offering) would be well worth it, and would better place the F-5E in DCS as its most advanced and capable version that saw the most service outside the USA. The F-5E we currently have in game is a bit of a franken-plane Swiss re-export back to USN for aggressor training, but it's what ED/BST could get a full document/performance library for, so its what we got in DCS.

I’d rather they did the full fancy pants F-5N with the pretty screens, or the F-5S that has a radar worth a damn and can shoot AMMRAMs.

[303_Kermit]

Little F-5E is brilliant. I just want it to be not worse than today

[SparrowLT]

Just fixing the wingtip bug would be allready a massive improvement.. then the computed sight .. wich unless was that bad in the original..its completelly useless in the DCS world .. or better than that.. the ADI and so slowly dissaligning in flight

[=475FG= Dawger]

I’m taking a break from the F-5 (probably permanently) until the wing is fixed. The rest doesn’t matter as long as the structural issues remain status quo. 

Probably end up in the Phantom for Cold War PvP, I’m guessing.

 

[Volator]

9 hours ago, SparrowLT said:

Just fixing the wingtip bug would be allready a massive improvement.. then the computed sight .. wich unless was that bad in the original..its completelly useless in the DCS world .. or better than that.. the ADI and so slowly dissaligning in flight

Add to that list the wrong RWR modes that have been stubbornly ignored by ED ever since, plus the at least doubtful very nose-heavy take-off and landing characteristics, and maybe even the pitch/vertical speed ratio.

[Bucic]

On 12/4/2023 at 6:14 AM, Volator said:

Add to that list the wrong RWR modes that have been stubbornly ignored by ED ever since, plus the at least doubtful very nose-heavy take-off and landing characteristics, and maybe even the pitch/vertical speed ratio.

Which RWR threads sums the issues best in your opinion? I keep hearing about it but since I don't do combat it hardly affects me.

I got those two

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/297995-rwr-search-mode-not-behaving-according-to-manual/

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/158723-rwr-not-showing-locked-radars-in-search-mode/

 

Also, add the symbols not updating while turning to the mix. Does anyone have a link to that thread. A guy cross-checked the operation of the RWR in DCS against a publicly available set of test questions for servicemen.

[Volator]

35 minutes ago, Bucic said:

Which RWR threads sums the issues best in your opinion?

Both do as far as I can tell from a quick read. One would just have to compare the search filter logic of other RWRs ED has implemented in other, similar RWRs in other modules themselves (!), and/or compare similar RWR search filters in basically every other combat flight sim to see that the F-5's search filter is odd.

 

If you haven't experienced the issue yourself, here's a quick description:

If you are in "search" mode in the F-5, the RWR will not show you the radar that is locking you (which is the major mistake by ED here)

If you are in "lock" mode though, it will only show you the locking radar, but not any radar searching.

So you can either choose to find out who is searching for you, but you will probably not notice that he locks to kill you, or you can be in lock mode to be aware of guys trying to kill you the moment he locks you, but you won't notice him searching you, i.e. you might be aware of his presence only when it's too late.

 

Therefore in F-5 practice you might be in search mode, have an enemy nail on your RWR, and once he disappears on the RWR, you would need to switch to "lock" mode to check if he is actually locking you or has dissappeared from search mode for other reasons. Not very practical in combat. All other modules show you the guy who is trying to kill you even if you are in "search mode" (i.e do not have the search radars filtered out), and that's of course how it should be.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Volator

[Bucic]

5 minutes ago, Volator said:

Both do as far as I can tell from a quick read. One would just have to compare the search filter logic of other RWRs ED has implemented in other, similar RWRs in other modules themselves (!), and/or compare similar RWR search filters in basically every other combat flight sim to see that the F-5's search filter is odd.

In my opinion the RWR is the most important leverage the F-5E has in combat scenarios. I recall duels against my buddy in an F/A-18C. The RWR was my only hope, every time. Any serious discrepancies in the operation of the system are, in my eyes, unacceptable.

[Ramius007]

F-5 we have, has no real application in combat for a mid 70's variant we get, lack of inertial navigation or some sort of bombing computer make it ankward in A2G, 2xSidewinder and weaker performance than anything supersonic make it bad fighter, it's preety much GBU truck for any effective combat use and not much else. It's realistic, but version we get is too limited in real combat enviroment of this era, and shouldnt be a reference for the module, and definitely not in current DCS enviroment. Even with like 4x Aim-9L it would be barely competetive, just a Mig-21 peer, as we have Mirage F-1 already and F-4/ Mig 23 coming. training agressors F-5 is ok, just need REAL combat variant used by one of many foreign operators on top of current training version.

Edited December 7, 2023 by Ramius007

[WinterH]

Man... We really need the laugh reaction back.

[TheSkipjack95]

So that's about 80% skill issue 20% trying to play in the 2000s arena most DCS missions are in.

 

Shocking for a 70s light fighter to be exactly that.

[Ramius007]

On 12/7/2023 at 4:18 PM, TheSkipjack95 said:

So that's about 80% skill issue 20% trying to play in the 2000s arena most DCS missions are in.

 

Shocking for a 70s light fighter to be exactly that.

in 70's  doppler navigation was a thing, you know? Same with modyfing inner pylons to fire sidewinders, 2 IR missiles is 50's era std, we have Mig 21bis from early 70's, and somehow export users modified it to allow double rack for R-60, we have this implemented in DCS Mig-21, but 4 Aim-9 that was std for F-5E II cant be? As for using F-5E for modern times, it's still in use with several AF's. It's not supposed to be competetive, but we have enaugh trainers in DCS already, and actully very few non FC3 fighters we can take and challange those F-teens in somehow realistic scenarios given maps we have availble

[RustBelt]

On 12/8/2023 at 3:05 PM, Ramius007 said:

in 70's  doppler navigation was a thing, you know? Same with modyfing inner pylons to fire sidewinders, 2 IR missiles is 50's era std, we have Mig 21bis from early 70's, and somehow export users modified it to allow double rack for R-60, we have this implemented in DCS Mig-21, but 4 Aim-9 that was std for F-5E II cant be? As for using F-5E for modern times, it's still in use with several AF's. It's not supposed to be competetive, but we have enaugh trainers in DCS already, and actully very few non FC3 fighters we can take and challange those F-teens in somehow realistic scenarios given maps we have availble

Basically, what your saying is just be a superpower with better equipment. Yea that’s not the F-5 way. F-5s were cheap fighters for poorer nations to “fight communism”. 

[Mizzy]

On 11/13/2023 at 5:44 AM, NineLine said:

I hope we will share some news on this soon and what it will entail, sorry for the wait. 

Thank you

Mizzy