Development F-5E Tiger II
Continuing working on the “famous” fighters’ line, we are especially concerned about game balance in DCS World. The best rival for the beloved by users MiG-21bis is an American fighter F-5E Tiger II, developed by the Northrop in the second half of the last century.

Consistently caring about the quality of the released product, which is reflected in the “similarity” between the developed module and the real airplane, our specialists, in their work, are trying to only use available documentary data of the original airplane.

Undoubtedly, a wide range of weapons from guided air-to-air missiles to various air-to-ground armament (unguided rockets, various bombs and cluster munitions) and two built-in 30-mm cannons will impress any fan of aviation battles. Professional flight model, implemented as close as possible to the real airplane in DCS World will allow aviation fans to enjoy flying the aircraft.

In the following updates, we are planning to inform our virtual pilots about development progress of this fighter for DCS World.

Ehum ... where is the AH1?

-C-

Ehum ... where is the AH1?

-C-

So we have F-14 coming and now the F5. Could somebody make a black paint skin for the F5 then we can replay scenes from the top gun movie

Ehum ... where is the AH1?

-C-

Hopefully history repeats itself as Belsimtek usually doesn't release info till a module is near ready.

So looking forward to this.

I have a few contacts with both BHTI and Sikorsky. Kinda part of my job

One corporate reply from the later when a request for a license to model the UH60-A was "WTF?"

When the same request was made to the former, the reply was, crickets. Not one engineering group or engineer was willing to sign up to release any data for any AH model dating back to the S.

Or they could do what ED does, just make it without a license or input from the company

BHTI doesn't play well with others. Nor does Sikorsky.

Incorrect, stop posting one liners assuming you know what goes on and suggesting that ED does not pursue legal rights to legally build and replicate aircraft and their systems.

K Thanks.

That disclaimer does not say they do not have a license when a license is required.

try again.


To accurately re produce any systems of any aircraft requires a license.

Every PSM DCS Aircraft is in that category.

Names, visual representation etc.

That disclaimer does not say they do not have a license when a license is required.

try again.


To accurately re produce any systems of any aircraft requires a license.

Every PSM DCS Aircraft is in that category.

Names, visual representation etc.

If you're an anal "it has to be almost crossing the line to classified to satisfy me!!" type, fine, don't buy it. It's hardly fair to deny a lesser-modeled version to the customers who won't mind just because it's not good enough for the hardliners.

There is a reason why this is called a STUDY SIM. When you want to turn off your brain and blow stuff up there is BoS, CLOD, IL2 1946 and a variety of others. Oh, I cant forget Strike Fighters... If you think it is easy, you must not be playing it full switch.

F-5E Tiger II. The armament that is planned to develop
The light tactical fighter F-5E Tiger II is developed primarily for air combat with enemy fighters, bombers, reconnaissance planes, and helicopters. Two 20-mm caliber cannons with 280 rounds per barrel and two air-to-air heat-seeking missiles AIM-9 can be used for this task.

At the same time, capabilities of onboard weapon systems and the presence of five hardpoints, allow employment of unguided and guided (external laser source) bombs, cluster bombs and unguided rockets in airstrike missions.

The following armament is planned to be available for the player:

1. Two 20-mm caliber M-39A3 cannons with rate of fire of 1500-1700 rounds per minute and ammunition of 280 rounds per gun;

2. Two heat-seeking missiles (AIM-9B or AIM-9P) (currently we are considering these versions);

3. Unguided bombs:

· 5x Mk-82

· 3x Mk-83

· 1x Mk-84

· 5x Mk-82 Snakeye

· 5x M-117

· MER-5 5x Mk-82

· MER-5 5x Mk-82 Snakeye;

4. Cluster bombs:

· 5хCBU-52B;

5. Guided bombs:

· 4x GBU-12 (buddy lasing or ground laser designator);

6. Unguided rockets:

· 4x LAU-61 (x19) (LAU-3 or LAU-60 could be added later)

· 4x LAU-68 (x7);

7. Flare dispenser:

· SUU-25C.

All the items, mentioned above, at this moment, have different status of readiness, but we are already sure that it will be a very interesting and playable module!

Exactly, there is need for both types of sims, and the "DCS should be study modules only" attitude helps no one. They take longer to make, which lowers output and therefore revenue generation.

Which is better, to make one DCS for $60 every three years, or make three FC planes in the same period for $25 each? The company makes 25% more, there are 3x as many planes to be used in the sim, people don't need a degree to master them...

There is a place for the DCS modules, for the special aircraft they can get sufficient info about, but they should be outnumbered by FC modules by at least 2 to 1. There are planes that will NEVER get DCS treatment (the Su-33 is apparently one). I'm glad it's there as it is instead of simply having no Su-33 to fly because the DCS-level information is restricted!

I remember Wags saying FC3 outsold many of their other modules. I remain surprised that they've not made an "FC4" with a new batch of similar-level planes for DCSW (as opposed to FC4 being FC3's planes in a new sim as the previous were). Maybe make a WWII FC or Korean War FC to get a bunch of planes out at once. Yeah, the Hornet is going to be great as a DCS module, but I'd be happy with an FC F-15E or something too.



The Jedi Master

Sometimes I go home and I am tired and the gametime turns into 40 minutes before I go to bed. I try to fly the Huey or some other complex machine but I just cant muster my brain cells into action.

...because I was inverted.

We, Navy, "we" were inverted.

Haha

Exactly, there is need for both types of sims, and the "DCS should be study modules only" attitude helps no one. They take longer to make, which lowers output and therefore revenue generation.

Which is better, to make one DCS for $60 every three years, or make three FC planes in the same period for $25 each? The company makes 25% more, there are 3x as many planes to be used in the sim, people don't need a degree to master them...

There is a place for the DCS modules, for the special aircraft they can get sufficient info about, but they should be outnumbered by FC modules by at least 2 to 1. There are planes that will NEVER get DCS treatment (the Su-33 is apparently one). I'm glad it's there as it is instead of simply having no Su-33 to fly because the DCS-level information is restricted!

I remember Wags saying FC3 outsold many of their other modules. I remain surprised that they've not made an "FC4" with a new batch of similar-level planes for DCSW (as opposed to FC4 being FC3's planes in a new sim as the previous were). Maybe make a WWII FC or Korean War FC to get a bunch of planes out at once. Yeah, the Hornet is going to be great as a DCS module, but I'd be happy with an FC F-15E or something too.



The Jedi Master

Non-clickable cockpits

I don't get why anyone would want a non-clickable cockpit. You could have an airplane with the same systems complexity as FC3 airplanes AND clickable switches. Sure, a lot of the switches would be non-functional like in FSX, and some of them would not function exactly like real life, but being able to click things doesn't make a plane harder to fly.

I don't get why anyone would want a non-clickable cockpit. You could have an airplane with the same systems complexity as FC3 airplanes AND clickable switches. Sure, a lot of the switches would be non-functional like in FSX, and some of them would not function exactly like real life, but being able to click things doesn't make a plane harder to fly.

If ED did an FC3 level F/A-18C alongside the study sim level that would be wonderful.