Is there aything new'er that can be added to F-5E to bring it into early 1990's?

[BalkanBattler]

On 1/18/2025 at 6:49 AM, twistking said:

The Swiss F-5s were not able to carry Mavericks, were they?

With the panel changes from northrop, yes they were, and they did test it after the hunters were retired in 1994. Remember the hunters were the ones that carried AGM-65 in switzerland

[BalkanBattler]

On 1/20/2025 at 8:42 AM, cailean_556 said:

Introduction

I know that 'in reality', the specific subject aircraft was very limited in what it could, and could not, carry. I know that in US service the F-5E was used mainly as an aggressor for DACT (Dissimilar Air Combat Training) or similar roles. I know that the F-5E we have in DCS is the F-5E-3. If we're going to hoist the flag of realism real high, then the F-5E-3 we have in DCS shouldn't be used for actual (as far as DCS goes) combat. 

However, I will point this out: the remaster module is called the "F-5E Remaster" and the (now deprecated) original module is also called the "F-5E Tiger II". There's no mention of the "F-5E-3 Tiger II/F-5E-3 Remaster". With that in mind, hear me out.

Improvements and capabilities have been added to modules before due to high demand, or because it suited, in the past. Point I'm making is the precedent of adding capabilities to aircraft that didn't have them previously is there. Looking at you, Ka-50 Blackshark III and A-10C II Tank Kiler.

To be fair, I've seen more people asking for an extra pair of AIM-9s, AGM-65 Mavericks and an IFR probe on the F-5E for nearly a decade than I have for an upgraded Ka-50, or the F-35. But I'm not on the forums or Discord often. So considering 'high demand' was one of the reasons cited for the development of the F-35, it stands to reason 'high demand' here might be worth a bit more consideration.

The F-5E represents a very broad range of aircraft that were tailored to meet the needs of their specific customer nations and/or were modified by their customer nations to suit their needs once delivered. They were 'modular by design' before being modular was a corporate buzzword, to cater for differing requirements (or incentives) among US allies. Local modifications, modifications fitted during the build based on customer specifications... Even today, some countries still use F-5s as lead-in fighter trainers - though admittedly far more advanced than the module we have in DCS.

4x AIM-9s

Adding an extra pair of AIM-9s to the F-5E is probably the "easiest" addition to add for ED. And, like the F-16 carrying 4x AGM-88s, there's evidence that this was trialed though not widely adopted - due to the cost-benefit of adding extra drag to a light, underpowered airframe - something DCS pilots don't worry about all that much. The aircraft already knows how to fire AIM-9s. To facilitate the missiles (both in reality and in DCS), the outer pylons need to be fitted with a missile rail (likely a LAU-7 given the timeframe, although they could very well have been LAU-100/101s that were taken off the wingtips - outside my wheelhouse). I am assuming the pylons themselves probably needed to be modified/rewired - something that isn't required in DCS. In terms of PVI, the only extra thing the pilot needs to do is flip the outer pylon arming switches, in addition to the wingtip switches. I can't say for certain the sequence of firing but given I've read that the pylons were super draggy (not unlike the dual R-60 rails on the MiG-21) it would make sense if the missiles on the pylons were fired first (to reduce drag), then the wingtips.

IFR Probe

The IFR probe is another "easy" addition - and while even the -3 never had them fitted, the airframe was absolutely capable of having it fitted because that's how they were designed from the factory. It requires a model of the IFR probe to be made (a fairly "simple" asset to make, considering) and then requires the coding in the background to facilitate aerial refueling. The probe itself could be an optional extra in the Mission Editor/Arming menu. Tiger Century Aircraft (Tiger Century Aircraft) might be a great place to start for advice, they've assisted several countries with upgrading their F-5 fleets - Chile, Brazil, the Philippines, Taiwan. They even have some basic info on their (modern) system for quad AIM-9s (though I'm unsure if they were the original developer of the system - still handy to know) here: Products — Tiger Century Aircraft.

I'm not demanding ED do the above (though I would honestly like it if they decided to...please?), but I'd be very surprised if any of the coders and artists working for ED, being used to churning out (relatively speaking) modules and assets month in and month out, couldn't achieve these "simple" additions in their sleep.

In addition to the radios and INS that ED is considering adding, if they can get documentation (as per NineLine), the above additions expand the capability of the module in DCS, enable it to simulate the aircraft of multiple other countries (in and around the locales we have, or are getting) and also provide incentive to purchase the Remaster for those not seeing the benefit (other than enhanced graphical fidelity).

AGM-65B Mavericks

The addition of AGM-65 Mavericks was fielded as early as the early 80s. This is where the 'mighty' F-5E-3 falls down because the display used in the -3 lacks the ability to show TV signals - which kills the -3's ability to use Mavericks. HOWEVER... With a not-insignificant-effort on behalf of the 3D artists, and much like the nuclear weapon operation panel installation and removal of the main-gear doors that occurs when a nuclear bomb is fitted to the MiG-21, we could go from the 'normal' F-5E-3 cockpit:

to this, if Mavericks are fitted to the aircraft (Taiwanese F-5E or F-5F with the AN/APQ-159-1 or -2 display, if it's an F):

That particular display allows the F-5E to aim and fire Mavericks. The dimensions appear extremely similar between the -1 and -3 radar displays and the cockpits are practically identical, save the display and External Stores selector. Moroccan F-5Es were rocking IFR probes and AGM-65B Mavericks during the West Saharan War in the late 70s/early 80s...

The External stores switch (which you may notice also has an extra position compared to the one in DCS currently) is turned right 1 place to 'AGM-65', the radar screen switches to display the Maverick seeker image, the missiles "warm up" (I think they actually cool down - don't they?) then displays the picture and the radar controls double as the controls for aiming and locking the Maverick... Ta-da! F-5E with Mavericks. So "simple", right? "Simple" because it's really anything but, but it's easier than making an entirely new F-5 module...

Alternatively, the Maverick cockpit/capability could be an ME/Rearming menu option.

While, realistically, such a modification to a F-5E-3 would take days, if not weeks, in DCS we don't have to worry about that aspect. Likewise, given the 'modular' nature of the F-5E in reality, if a country still using F-5Es today were to buy an F-5E-3 'back in the day', it is not outside the realms of plausibility that they could 'upgrade' that F-5E-3 to a standard that fit their needs relatively easily (TCA existing as a company is proof of that - but for more modern variants of the F-5, obviously). As far as I can tell, AGM-65s can be carried on either wing pylons - allowing up to 4x AGM-65s: a stupidly heavy and impractical load for a very small plane - but the F-16 can carry 4x AGM-88s in DCS so... They only seem to be the TV-guided AGM-65B versions (unsure about Laser or IR) - at least in the 80s.

Conclusion

What a proposal like the above has going for it over adding a late 90s/early 2000s F-5 with BVR and TGP and EW and all that jazz (which would rightly be a different module - namely an F-5EM, or an F-5E TIII, or F-5S) is that, despite the module subject being a -3, the additional capabilities were not outside the realms of F-5Es around the timeframe of this particular aircraft. 'F-5E Tiger II' is what it says 'on the box', after all. It's the same radar, the same engines, the same cockpit layout (except the Maverick specific items if using Mavericks) and the work required by ED is comparatively minor considering the work that went into module upgrades like the Ka-50 and A-10C.

Is this, or some similar request, in high demand? There are many, many instances of this request dating back nearly 10 years. Would more people consider buying the F-5 if this were to become a reality? You tell me. Who'd buy the Remaster, or the module if they don't own the original, if it came with the option of quad AIM-9s, AGM-65Bs and IFR?

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk...

YES very well said, I agree with all of this!

 

If ED responds to what customers want, we customers want the F-5E Tiger II with the factory export options! 

[Bucic]

Quote

However, I will point this out: the remaster module is called the "F-5E Remaster" and the (now deprecated) original module is also called the "F-5E Tiger II". There's no mention of the "F-5E-3 Tiger II/F-5E-3 Remaster". With that in mind, hear me out.

.

.

.

Geeez...

 

[cailean_556]

14 hours ago, Bucic said:

Geeez...

 

It's definitely down in the weeds - I agree. But ED has made tweaks "for the sake of entertainment value" on some modules, or has supported said tweaks, while also clutching the mantle of realism and dismissing customer (for the sake of entertainment value) requests on others.

NineLine and BIGNEWY have said, probably until they're blue in the face (not throwing shade here fellas, just stating a fact) that the F-5E variant modelled in DCS (the F-5E-3) cannot have these highly requested additions because the aircraft never had those things in reality - or at least words to that effect. 

The MiG-21bis in DCS can carry older missiles that only worked with an older radar - which allows it to simulate very early Cold War MiG-21s - at least in terms of weapons. The MiG-21bis can also carry nukes in DCS (though they did to this in real life too, but DCS doesn't want nukes...but allowed them anyway...). 

The C-101 can carry the Sea Eagle missile in DCS. In reality, only trials were done in this aircraft - by ONE country. It was never adopted. But it was added "for fun".

The F-16C can carry 4 AGM-88 HARMs. USAF jets (which we're reminded our F-16 is modelled after) never did so, outside of trials. This was added - and stated as such - due to high demand from the DCS community.

The Mirage 2000C can carry the DDM - a system only ever used on the Mirage 2000D. But it was added because, in theory, it could be.

The JF-17 (which is modelled after a Block I) can be fitted with an IFR probe, which Block Is never really had - that was a capability added to the Block II. Eventually, all JF-17s would have IFR probes (that was the intent in reality, unsure if they did this by equipping the Block Is or replacing them with Block IIs - or if they've even finished). So the decision was made to retroactively add the IFR probe, as an *option*. Which only reinforces my point re: the F-5E and an IFR probe.

We can either go down with the sinking ship of realism, or loosen our grip to enable aircraft modules get interesting (or highly requested) capabilities that value add to the module, and to DCS. And I'm not just talking the F-5 here. There's plenty of scope (and demand) for things like AIM-120 capable F-4s. Upgraded Su-27s (like a Su-27SM - Deka did make the J-11A variant for the Flanker and ED adopted it) hell, even variant upgrades to the F-16 - like a Block 52 with CFTs (the Blackshark III and A-10C II Tank Killer do this exact thing).

Realistically, the F-5E-3s used by the US could be fitted with an IFR probe, they just never needed or wanted to - but they were plumbed that way at the factory. Just in case. Realistically, at the time the F-5E-3 was flying, there were other F-5Es flying that had the capabilities listed in my original post that the -3 lacked (but could also realistically be fitted with, even now - there's a whole company devoted to this).

From a gameplay perspective (Wags has, just recently, described DCS as a 'simulation game') an extra pair of IR AAMs, an IFR probe definitely adds to the entertainment factor without completely dominating PvP servers (not that I personally care about that aspect, but it's still a consideration) and still retaining the same AN/APQ-159 radar, the same engines, the same flight controls. It's the same plane. (EDIT: Wags also recently stated that this USAF F-5E-3 was actually meant to be a Swiss F-5E...which the US bought back for aggressor duties - which blurs the lines of this jet actually is even more).

Even if they decided to add the Maverick capability, it's a display screen (that in reality can be unscrewed, unplugged and changed out) and an stores selector panel with an extra position (which can also be changed out/rewired by maintenance staff). Still the same jet under the hood. 

As someone who owns the legacy F-5E module who has not yet upgraded (because I don't see the point just now, I'm okay with the graphical representation of my current F-5E - I'm sure I'll upgrade eventually but it's way, way low on my DCS priority list), if they added these options then it's a compelling carrot to dangle in front of me that will force me to at least reconsider whether I commit to the Remaster, or remain intent on purchasing the MB-339 when I have the time and money to do so, or another jet. And it may just sway others who don't have the F-5E to buy it also. If ED choses not to (as they've repeatedly stuck to their guns on this in the past) then so be it. I still have an F-5E - the module that brought me to DCS in the first place.

But TL;DR is this: Allowances, for the sake of fun, have been made in other modules. A module is coming out - in a year, supposedly - that will be chock full of allowances. And that's okay. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, or that it won't be fun to fly. Or that it won't 'feel real'. But why is the F-5E any different to any of the aircraft I've listed? Especially now.

Edited January 22 by cailean_556

[Thamiel]

6 hours ago, cailean_556 said:

But why is the F-5E any different to any of the aircraft I've listed? Especially now.

It isnt. It never was. If the guys who hacked that module into existence are still around the house, you may consider to have a go at it. If they moved on, you dont (and sell cosmetics instead).

[twistking]

What benefits would the digital radios bring to DCS apart from the obviously more realistic representation of that version of the aircraft?

I'm not arguing against it, just wondering why people get excited about the prospect. From all the features discussed here (Quad-winders, AAR, Mavs, INS) this seems to be the least interesting from a gameplay point of view...

[WRCRob]

1 hour ago, twistking said:

What benefits would the digital radios bring to DCS apart from the obviously more realistic representation of that version of the aircraft?

I'm not arguing against it, just wondering why people get excited about the prospect. From all the features discussed here (Quad-winders, AAR, Mavs, INS) this seems to be the least interesting from a gameplay point of view...

The Extra radios would be useful in multiplayer gameplay, when you have a GCI/AWACS controller and want inter flight over SRS. So those would have an impact on gameplay, however compared to AAR, Quad winders and the INS system (or the option to 3d mount the 430) it is less impactful. I would sacrifice the radios and even the INS for AAR capability and quad winders in a heartbeat. 

Edited January 23 by WRCRob

[twistking]

31 minutes ago, WRCRob said:

The Extra radios would be useful in multiplayer gameplay, when you have a GCI/AWACS controller and want inter flight over SRS. So those would have an impact on gameplay, however compared to AAR, Quad winders and the INS system (or the option to 3d mount the 430) it is less impactful. I would sacrifice the radios and even the INS for AAR capability and quad winders in a heartbeat. 

I see.
3d mounting the 430 would also be cool indeed. Haven't even thought about it.

[Chess96]

On 1/21/2025 at 5:53 PM, BalkanBattler said:

the Swiss did in fact fly with 4x sidewinders?

We indeed tested those loadouts but they were never adopted with the fleet operationaly.
I am almost certain you will not find an other picture of a swiss Tiger with 4 Siwa. The one you shared is the only one i'm aware where you see this loadout and I believe it date back from the early trials. (But hey, never say never. The internet always prooves you wrong)
Nonetheless, claiming we should have 4 siwa on the tiger because the swiss did it would be missleading.

[Stackup]

3 hours ago, Chess96 said:

Nonetheless, claiming we should have 4 siwa on the tiger because the swiss did it would be missleading.

Regardless of whether or not we should have the 4 missiles, ED specifically say they are modelling a Swiss F-5E-3.  Which means if the Swiss did do this on the F-5E-3's they had, we should get it, regardless of what the US did when they bought it back for their aggressor program. 

The jet we have doesn't fully match either plane despite what ED wants us to think with their, "Well the jet we're modeling didn't have that" talking point.  Which brings us back to the fact that all F-5E's were factory capable of all export options, including as I understand it, the 4x Sidewinders that was approved by the US even though it never saw operational use and the refueling probe among other items.  Other aircraft like BlackShark3 and the F-16 have unrealistic/test loadout options that don't match what ED says they're modeling so this is very clearly a randomly applied standard based on percieved value the addition would bring to the market vs time spent adding it.  The uproar over 4x HARMs for the F-16 got that feature re-added so who knows.

[Chess96]

21 minutes ago, Stackup said:

If the Swiss did do this on the F-5E-3's they had, we should get it

But that's the thing, they did not.

If you start saying we should get everything that you can find in an picture, then I want a Phoenix on my Phantom. 

I get that people want more stuff on their plane and that's okay. 

But please do not use the argument "the swiss did it therefore we should have it"

[Mr_sukebe]

To bring the F5 into the 90s.  How about Sony Diskman?  I'm not sure how well it would work under 6g load, but maybe worth a try.

[BalkanBattler]

13 hours ago, Chess96 said:

But that's the thing, they did not.

If you start saying we should get everything that you can find in an picture, then I want a Phoenix on my Phantom. 

I get that people want more stuff on their plane and that's okay. 

But please do not use the argument "the swiss did it therefore we should have it"

I see where you are coming from, and you are correct. 

The argument is that Northrop did it and therefore we should have it. 
Northrop is the one that manufactured an aircraft with the capability to load and fire four missiles. 
The Swiss tried it and decided it was unnecessary for them. 

That does not mean that the aircraft does not have the capability. 

[Bucic]

I find it trully amusing how it doesn't get to some that their wants are subjective. - Swiss didn't have it? Well, Northrop was able to! Wasn't? Erm... If it can be mocked up with cardboard, ED should have the decency and at least program it in!

So preoccupied with wants that you haven't even noticed that night ligting... doesn't work for side panels. But yeah, we can't let ED get away with a non-functional piece of dorsal antenna

[Chess96]

1 minute ago, BalkanBattler said:

That does not mean that the aircraft does not have the capability.

And I never implied that.

The F-5 is/was one of those aircrafts that got a lot of variants and was sold to a lot of air forces. Each of those air force then adapted the aircraft for their individual needs, tried some stuff, and in the end Northrop had to validate some of it.

Now I am no developer and I do not work at ED but the way they seem to go about it is that now that they have their headquarters in Switzerland, it's easy for them to go to our museums and take inspiration from our swiss F-5 (swiss military aviation museums are amazing, the jets there are looked after by qualified passionate personnel and the feel like they would be ready to start up any minute). 

I'm guessing that's where the argument of "were doing a swiss F-5" comes from. If they had to implement each subsystem that was ever put in an E-3 the jet would end up being a mess (also the more system/capabilities in a module the more prone to bugs it is) and people would be quick to request features from other variants than the E-3 (hell they already are ...) the line has to be drawn somewhere. 

[nairb121]

It's not intended to be the hypothetical ultimate F-5E with all the possible factory options... Wags stated quite plainly that it is "the Swiss F-5E that were later operated as aggressors." Yes, it should also have the INS and digital radios, he acknowledged that as well – and if they can, they should definitely add them. But we have not been promised, and are not "owed" any more than what the Swiss used operationally. I'd love the extra capabilities too, but I'm not going to claim that we "should" have them.

[BalkanBattler]

53 minutes ago, nairb121 said:

It's not intended to be the hypothetical ultimate F-5E with all the possible factory options... Wags stated quite plainly that it is "the Swiss F-5E that were later operated as aggressors." Yes, it should also have the INS and digital radios, he acknowledged that as well – and if they can, they should definitely add them. But we have not been promised, and are not "owed" any more than what the Swiss used operationally. I'd love the extra capabilities too, but I'm not going to claim that we "should" have them.

The reason I keep harping on the features is because the F-5E was ONLY MADE to be exported (unlike the F-5A through C). So why not have an F-5E with the features shipped from factory? Wags also said they might look into an F-5EM - why? Nobody is asking for Amraams on an F-5, we're just asking for the features that shipped with the F-5E to be included in the module. Literally no one asked for a Swiss F-5E, no one asked for 2 radios, but there are decade old threads asking for Mavericks and INS.
 

 

53 minutes ago, Chess96 said:

Now I am no developer and I do not work at ED but the way they seem to go about it is that now that they have their headquarters in Switzerland, it's easy for them to go to our museums and take inspiration from our swiss F-5 (swiss military aviation museums are amazing, the jets there are looked after by qualified passionate personnel and the feel like they would be ready to start up any minute). 

I'm guessing that's where the argument of "were doing a swiss F-5" comes from. If they had to implement each subsystem that was ever put in an E-3 the jet would end up being a mess (also the more system/capabilities in a module the more prone to bugs it is) and people would be quick to request features from other variants than the E-3 (hell they already are ...) the line has to be drawn somewhere. 

1. There isn't a single ED employee in Switzerland, the developers are in Russia. Sometimes they contract artists outside of Russia.

2. Your argument about drawing the line is invalidated by Wags when he said they would consider doing the Brazilian modernized F-5M, sorry. How many additional features is a brand new radar, HUD, avionics, Flight control system, AMRAAM integration, fuselage strengthening... It's not even an F-5E anymore. And no one is asking for that in this module. We're asking for F-5E features on an F-5E. 

We're just asking for an F-5E. Also, you're telling me they can put together an F-35, but putting a 3 minute timer on Maverick Gyro warmup plus a green lamp to indicate warmer up is.... impossibly difficult? 

The F-5 is an extremely simple aircraft and these weapons systems are also extremely simple. The APQ-159 differs from our radar by having knob that switches to TV - that's it. The Mav weapon panel has four green lights. The AAR panel has 1 switch on the fuel panel and 1 switch on the left panel... I don't accept the argument that this is somehow too complicated or too difficult to do. This is stupidly simple in comparison to the literal thousands of features on the MFD jets. And the function is all laid out in the -1.

They took peoples money for some half-baked "remaster" and lied about how much work they did (cockpit is literally the same 3D model). I'd like to see ED actually do some research and present an upgrade that people actually want, and have been asking for for literally a decade. Just look back at all the threads.

They should represent an F-5E, not an F-5N, because that's what they put on the store page. 

Also the dorsal antenna is gone now, so I guess we don't have a Swiss F-5E after all. 

 

Edited January 28 by BalkanBattler
more polite

[BalkanBattler]

39 minutes ago, Chess96 said:

Each of those air force then adapted the aircraft for their individual needs, tried some stuff, and in the end Northrop had to validate some of it.

This is outside the scope of the F-5E we're talking about though. 

I want to make a very clear distinction between Factory, and After-Market. 

What we are asking for are FACTORY options that Northrop CREATED and shipped as-is. 

We are NOT asking for after-market like the Israeli upgrades with HUDS and MFD's and AMRAAM and Python all that crap.  

The latter could hardly be considered an F-5E anymore 

Edited January 28 by BalkanBattler

[Thamiel]

24 minutes ago, BalkanBattler said:

How many additional features is a brand new radar, HUD, avionics, Flight control system, AMRAAM integration, fuselage strengthening... It's not even an F-5E anymore. And no one is asking for that in this module. We're asking for F-5E features on an F-5E. 

If it is already available in some other modules and the documentation of the implementation of the current F-5 is accurate, its quite easy to adapt including adding limits to its performance. Its far more difficult the other way around, i would guess, creating some new functionality used nowhere else.

[Chess96]

22 minutes ago, BalkanBattler said:

Literally no one asked for a Swiss F-5E, no one asked for 2 radios, but there are decade old threads asking for Mavericks and INS.

Indeed but that is what they now have easy access to.

 

23 minutes ago, BalkanBattler said:

Your argument about drawing the line is invalidated by Wags when he said they would consider doing the Brazilian modernized F-5M

Well actually it is not. I dont believe wags said they wanted to add those features to the current F-5E. Rather this would be a separate variant from my understanding (à la Aerges with their different variants of the Mirage F1). I wouldn't mind having a modernised brazilian F-5

 

26 minutes ago, BalkanBattler said:

you're telling me they can put together an F-35

I was expecting this argument to pop up a some point. I believe this is not relevant to this topic. I would wait and see what the F-35 product ends up looking like before waiving it around as an argument that they now can do anything in the sim. If it ends up being absolutely ridiculous then this argument does not stand. If it ends up working fine, then we can start lighting torches and asking ED "what about this and that". In the meantine it doesn't mean anything really.

32 minutes ago, BalkanBattler said:

Also the dorsal antenna is gone now, so I guess we don't have a Swiss F-5E after all. 

It's still there. It is a Livery argument. It appears on swiss and austrian skins and is removed on aggressors skins. Same goes for some antennas under the nose. This was mentionned in the last change log.

29 minutes ago, BalkanBattler said:

What we are asking for are FACTORY options that Northrop CREATED and shipped as-is.

Yeah we hear you loud and clear. And ED has replied by saying they're doing the Swiss spec variant (for now) they never said anything about a factory version.
Could they have done it ? Maybe but they have easy access to the swiss ones so that's what they based their module on... 
It's the same story for every module in DCS

[BalkanBattler]

14 minutes ago, Thamiel said:

If it is already available in some other modules and the documentation of the implementation of the current F-5 is accurate, its quite easy to adapt including adding limits to its performance. Its far more difficult the other way around, i would guess, creating some new functionality used nowhere else.

We're saying the same thing - Mavericks are on almost every Jet in DCS, they know how they work

[BalkanBattler]

33 minutes ago, Chess96 said:

Indeed but that is what they now have easy access to.

According to WHO? There is no proof anywhere that they have access to a Swiss F-5E. Source? 

 

34 minutes ago, Chess96 said:

Well actually it is not. I dont believe wags said they wanted to add those features to the current F-5E. Rather this would be a separate variant from my understanding (à la Aerges with their different variants of the Mirage F1). I wouldn't mind having a modernised brazilian F-5

I don't understand why you are open to this and you are not open to a factory F-5E variant. I'm genuinely starting to think I am being trolled. 
 

 

34 minutes ago, Chess96 said:

I was expecting this argument to pop up a some point. I believe this is not relevant to this topic. I would wait and see what the F-35 product ends up looking like before waiving it around as an argument that they now can do anything in the sim. If it ends up being absolutely ridiculous then this argument does not stand. If it ends up working fine, then we can start lighting torches and asking ED "what about this and that". In the meantine it doesn't mean anything really.

You didn't read what I wrote. You are responding to an imagined argument.
I am saying that the F-35 is the most complex project ED has undertaken to date. By comparison, the F-5E is extremely simple. I am not saying that features should be hand waved on. I actually agree with you on this. 

 

36 minutes ago, Chess96 said:

Yeah we hear you loud and clear. And ED has replied by saying they're doing the Swiss spec variant (for now) they never said anything about a factory version.
Could they have done it ? Maybe but they have easy access to the swiss ones so that's what they based their module on... 
It's the same story for every module in DCS

Again - they do NOT have access to a Swiss F-5E. In fact, they have openly said that they do NOT have data on Swiss F-5E's (i.e. Radios and INS). 

I am asking, why base it on a Swiss F-5E then? The customers have been asking for a variant F-5E with AAR and Mavericks since the inception of the F-5E module. So ED reads that and goes "you know what? I'm going to remaster it, add no new capability, and call it a Swiss version, but not model the radios and INS that would actually make it a Swiss version".

What happened here is that they or a contractor made them a 3D model, and then ED fit it around their existing cockpit, called it a Swiss F-5E and charged $10 for it.

ED is the one doing the hand waving here - without the radios and INS, this isn't a Swiss F-5E, period. It is now, and always has been a franken-jet with that RWR. No USAF F-5E had that RWR.
And if they were willing to make a change from a USAF Adversary F-5E-3 to a Swiss/USN F-5E, why not look back at what the community was actually asking for, for years? 

The F-5E was purpose built as an export fighter. If that's that case, they should model an F-5E that was exported, that best represents the equipment it was originally  manufactured shipped with. Listen to the customers, this is what we have been asking for, again, for years and years. 
 

[Thamiel]

2 hours ago, BalkanBattler said:

We're saying the same thing - Mavericks are on almost every Jet in DCS, they know how they work

Im merely refering to the possible workload for a devteam to make it happen and not to the reasons to do it (or not to do it). Yes, there are a lot of synergies over the whole range of modules regarding cockpit key functionalities like radio based communication, detection, navigation equipment. I never understood how bugs in those areas could survive that long other than every developer cooking its own brew and core interface behavior changing on a regular basis even after 15 years. Points to an overall lack of planning and some sloppy work priorities. But then again thats old news with ED and its customer base paying for it.

[Fitzcarraldo]

1 hour ago, BalkanBattler said:

ED is the one doing the hand waving here - without the radios and INS, this isn't a Swiss F-5E, period. It is now, and always has been a franken-jet with that RWR. No USAF F-5E had that RWR.
And if they were willing to make a change from a USAF Adversary F-5E-3 to a Swiss/USN F-5E, why not look back at what the community was actually asking for, for years? 

The F-5E was purpose built as an export fighter. If that's that case, they should model an F-5E that was exported, that best represents the equipment it was originally  manufactured shipped with. Listen to the customers, this is what we have been asking for, again, for years and years. 

I agree. There is generally merit in focusing on a specific version of a jet, especially if the jets are incredibly complex. The F-5 however is not that complex and the version we have is a "frankenjet" indeed. AAR and quad-carry heaters would just make sense for the module.
Mavs are more complicated, because they would require bigger changes to the cockpit afaik (different screen?). I would understand if ED are not willing to do that out of economical considerations. They could simply say so then. No need to deflect or hide behind the idea of a perfectly recreated swiss version...

4 hours ago, Bucic said:

So preoccupied with wants that you haven't even noticed that night ligting... doesn't work for side panels. But yeah, we can't let ED get away with a non-functional piece of dorsal antenna

Can you create a bug report? I don't know how to upload images.

Edited January 28 by Fitzcarraldo

[Bucic]

1 hour ago, Fitzcarraldo said:

I agree. There is generally merit in focusing on a specific version of a jet, especially if the jets are incredibly complex. The F-5 however is not that complex and the version we have is a "frankenjet" indeed. AAR and quad-carry heaters would just make sense for the module.
Mavs are more complicated, because they would require bigger changes to the cockpit afaik (different screen?). I would understand if ED are not willing to do that out of economical considerations. They could simply say so then. No need to deflect or hide behind the idea of a perfectly recreated swiss version...

Can you create a bug report? I don't know how to upload images.

This! ED should state that "In case of F-5E we're doing <this><that> and in case of any future module the feature set is at our discretion, to be communicated." And that's it. Don't like it, don't buy it. It's getting tiresome, even having unsubscribed from most of the discussions on this particular subject.

On the night cockpit lighting, I will report it soon. Just monitor the 'Bugs and Problems' for the F-5E or follow my profile to get notified.