SC Designs F5E just released

[collensr]

Add me to the “likes it” crowd. Systems feel good, and the flight model (other than the rudder thing) feels top-notch. Inside the plane looks great, and I don’t fly from the external view, though it’s fun to pop out and look at the plane occasionally.

Textures outside might not be jaw dropping, but once the paint kit hits I imagine we’ll have the usual wonderful selection of optional liveries to choose from.

I guess I’m a rarity around here in caring more about the authenticity of the flying experience than the texture density. I’d expect that from the official forum, but I thought the fellow old fogies here were more about how the plane flies than the eye candy.

(Edit: Or, what JohnC wrote just above me. There are a few of us, I guess!)

I'm not sure you are a rarity in caring about the flight model! I have never actually flown an F-5 but have spent a lot of time around them, photographing them on the ground and shooting them air-to-air at places like Key West, Miramar and Fallon. As a layman I can't tell whether a flight model accurately depicts the real aircraft or not although I do notice when the controls are obviously unrealistic in a 'simming sense'. I'm not a pilot but I have always found it hard to be convinced that it's actually even possible to fully replicate a real flight model in a desk based simulator game. Again I bow to the expertise of the real pilots here who sim as well. To me though for a level of immersion that will get me to use a product regularly (or even simply more than once) it absolutely has to look right and sound right. In MSFS for a Payware product today that means, as a minimum, that the sounds are top notch, the internal and external modelling is accurate (e.g. with properly formed curves on canopy frames etc ...) and the texturing and paint finish is at least a quality of what the freeware community can achieve. I don't consider the latter as "eye candy". When you see the finish that likes of Fly-by-wire and others can achieve on freeware products there is now a very high bar in terms of the texture and paint finish now demanded/expected. I also appreciate that some people have no requirement for any external views as they just fly the thing but personally an accurate and relevant pilot figure is also a big 'realism' factor for me although I appreciate others are less bothered on this aspect.

Anyways I agree that once Dean has got some updates out and our painters have got busy this will be a useful addition to my hanger.

Fellow old fogey

[jmig]

Off topic a bit but when did the Ryzen 8700X3D get released? You a beta tester for AMD?

Not a beta tester. I am a dyslexia tester. Or maybe it is senility.

Thanks for pointing that out to me. It should be 7800 x3d.

[GO_Navy]

Not a beta tester. I am a dyslexia tester. Or maybe it is senility.

Thanks for pointing that out to me. It should be 7800 x3d.

No worries, I was excited for a minute and wanted to get some insight into what's coming next.

I need to upgrade my current processor (10900K).

I have heard great reviews on the 7800x3d for MSFS. What are you thoughts? You like it? Better then Intel you think?

[jmig]

No worries, I was excited for a minute and wanted to get some insight into what's coming next.

I need to upgrade my current processor (10900K).

I have heard great reviews on the 7800x3d for MSFS. What are you thoughts? You like it? Better then Intel you think?

I got interested in it from reading threads started by other members on the virtues of the AMD 7800 x3d. The primary benefit being its huge cache . While I was not unhappy with my i9 10900 CPU, whenever I ran FPS counters, it always showed the mainthread as being the choke point.

The 7800 has helped a lot. I use a Meta Quest 3 headset and find that I get outstanding performance in VR. I have my frames set at 30/sec and, so far, haven’t experienced any shudders or freezes. I have not tried any performance “tweaks”. The built-in boast pushes the CPU up to 5.1 Hz.

I primarily fly GA aircraft and, as a rule, do not go into major airports. When I first got the system up and running I did a test flight with the SWS PC-12 over Manhattan. I never saw the frames drop below 30, nor did the red long latency graph show its ugly head.

Just be aware that if you go with the AMD CPU, you will have to change out your motherboard, water-cooler, and RAM as well.

[keithb77]

Javis stated in the F86 thread

The same nose-high landing and take-off procedures apply to the F-5 as well. Non of the two F-5 models i tried (not the current SCD F-5E model) was able to perform these techniques.

Thought I would answer here:

The SC F-5 can do both, though with caveats

You can ease the nose-wheel off the ground at 100+ and hold the attitude and it will fly itself off when ready.
However you can do this with or without the nose-wheel extension, so not quite 100% maybe.

You can land nose-high and keep the nose up until 100 Kts when it drops onto the nosewheel, conveniently at the limiting speed for the brake-chute
But there isn't much aero-brake effect (probably an MSFS limitation) so unless you have a loooong runway it's going to get exciting when the nose drops and you see how close the runways end actually is...

[ViperPilot2]

in R/L it works all the time and you would also use the CDI needle as an aide memoire to indicate runway direction for T/O, circuits, landings and cross-country.
.

What a Tip! Never thought of using the Needle for that! What a stupído I've been all these years!

Many, many thanks!

[GO_Navy]

Thank you for your thoughts on the 7800x3d.

Thinking about pulling the trigger on it in my new build. Let's see if I can convince the MRS to let me spend a few thousand

[Javis]

Javis stated in the F86 thread

Thought I would answer here:

The SC F-5 can do both, though with caveats

You can ease the nose-wheel off the ground at 100+ and hold the attitude and it will fly itself off when ready.
However you can do this with or without the nose-wheel extension, so not quite 100% maybe.

Thanks Keith ! Just what i was wondering about, what does this 'nose-wheel extension' actually do/mean ?...

It's very good to know that the nosewheel-up/lift off procedure *does* work with the SC F-5. I watched one review of the SC F-5 that directs the flightmodel to the boneyard straight away...

You can land nose-high and keep the nose up until 100 Kts when it drops onto the nosewheel, conveniently at the limiting speed for the brake-chute
But there isn't much aero-brake effect (probably an MSFS limitation) so unless you have a loooong runway it's going to get exciting when the nose drops and you see how close the runways end actually is...

I honestly can't remember anymore if the nosewheel high landing technique of both our FS-9 F-86 and B-25 did actually shorten the roll out. Knowing Rob's expertise on flight dynamics creation it probabely did. I just loved to watch my take-off's and landings in external- or fly-by view as much as possible. Which with both these aircraft always was something special to see.

[keithb77]

Have yet to see an SC F5 review by anyone who can actually fly...
The Dev team are starting to put out helpful videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3tISj-rX5c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyFOCc0-nLs

[ColoKent]

I too, am disappointed with this release. For one thing, the airplane seems ridiculously overpowered (anyone else have any thoughts on that?), and the pitch sensitivity seems too light. Both issues seem improbable since I got the impression Dean was using one or more F-5/T-38 pilots for testing-- so I am certain those issues would have been spotted. My second issue is the AB flame...it looks fake to me, and I'd rather have none in that case. The final item that (for me) detracted from the otherwise decent cockpit were the mirrors....not a fan...hopefully they can be improved (other developers have come up with more convincing mirrors).

Hopefully Dean will issue a few updates, and after a period of time, this release will improve. Keeping my fingers crossed, as I am an F-5 nut....and there is a possibility that they will also do a two-seat F-5F....so matured well, this product could STILL become my "go to" fighter in the sim.

Kent

P.S. I also hope they keep an option to retain the legacy helmet the pilot currently has, in addition to adding the modern-day helmet a number of people are yammering about.

[Javis]

P.S. I also hope they keep an option to retain the legacy helmet the pilot currently has, in addition to adding the modern-day helmet a number of people are yammering about.

We're not yammering just hammering in the usual F-5 helmet type, which is the HGU-55/P. As a F-5 nut you should know that :



Alrighty then, if you must :



That's an old HGU-33/P. But if you notice, he is Saudi-Arabian... Maybe didn't have money enough to buy a HGU-55/P...

[delta_lima]

While a choice between helmets (or more accurately, pilots, which would include period-correct harnesses and a myriad other details) would be preferable, given the Tiger II 50-odd service lifespan, I fail to see why it’s an issue that he chose a reasonably accurate helmet type to depict F-5E pilots in the roughly first 20 years of the E’s history. Especially if he had the 80s Top Gun era in mind.

[tiger1962]

I must confess that I have NO interest in flying military aircraft of any type in a civilian sim, for any reason. There I said it. I'm here because I believe that MSFS, more than any other sim before it, is a universal platform to be enjoyed by ALL who are interested in aviation. This website has some of the most experienced, knowledgeable and helpful simmers on the net right now, and I'm proud to be a member.
Dean has felt the need to comment on the official forums about what he feels has been unfair criticism of the F5E, and I feel obliged to agree with him.
There are far too many armchair pilots in this hobby as a whole who feel entitled to absolute accuracy in all aspects regardless of trademarks, copyrights, official secrets acts, you name it.
As Dean pointed out in his post, some criticism of the flight handling, specifically the roll rate, demonstrated a complete ignorance of the real life roll rate before some reviewer published that video.
I have never, and will never, watch a video by any of these self-appointed authorities on flight sim aircraft before deciding on a purchase. At my time of life, and FS experience, I know much better than they will ever do.
If anyone here wishes to actually ENCOURAGE developers to improve on their aircraft, cyber bullying is NOT the way to do it.
It's not Big and it's not Clever. It makes YOU look like a self-centered, ignorant newbie.
Please guys, let's treat all of our MSFS developers with more respect and give them some polite and constructive requests and suggestions which reflect our age and experience, instead of the childish tantrums which have been posted so far in this thread.

[ZsoltB]

I must confess that I have NO interest in flying military aircraft of any type in a civilian sim, for any reason. There I said it. I'm here because I believe that MSFS, more than any other sim before it, is a universal platform to be enjoyed by ALL who are interested in aviation. This website has some of the most experienced, knowledgeable and helpful simmers on the net right now, and I'm proud to be a member.
Dean has felt the need to comment on the official forums about what he feels has been unfair criticism of the F5E, and I feel obliged to agree with him.
There are far too many armchair pilots in this hobby as a whole who feel entitled to absolute accuracy in all aspects regardless of trademarks, copyrights, official secrets acts, you name it.
As Dean pointed out in his post, some criticism of the flight handling, specifically the roll rate, demonstrated a complete ignorance of the real life roll rate before some reviewer published that video.
I have never, and will never, watch a video by any of these self-appointed authorities on flight sim aircraft before deciding on a purchase. At my time of life, and FS experience, I know much better than they will ever do.
If anyone here wishes to actually ENCOURAGE developers to improve on their aircraft, cyber bullying is NOT the way to do it.
It's not Big and it's not Clever. It makes YOU look like a self-centered, ignorant newbie.
Please guys, let's treat all of our MSFS developers with more respect and give them some polite and constructive requests and suggestions which reflect our age and experience, instead of the childish tantrums which have been posted so far in this thread.

I think that if someone offers his goods for money, he should be punctual and take criticism, no need to be offended, this is not the nursery!

[tiger1962]

I think that if someone offers his goods for money, he should be punctual and take criticism, no need to be offended, this is not the nursery!

Thank you for providing the PERFECT example of what I'm talking about.

[jmig]

I was going to wait for the update before purchasing. However, after reading all the comments, mostly negative, I decided to buy it and see for myself. I spent most of the morning setting up and flying the F-5E, version 1.0.

My initial impressions are very favorable. I had issues with the jet veering to the left on T/O, but I attribute to MSFS shi%y ground handling or my rudder pedals. However, once I got into the air the jet responded as I would expect.

I flew the jet with a basic load and clean. The extra 4000 lbs. of thrust vs. the T-38 made a difference. It was agile and quick. As with almost every aircraft and especially fighters the pitch is too sensitive, in my opinion. However, from watching YouTube videos, this pitch over sensitivity seems to be the norm for MSFS.

As for the complaints about incorrect helmets, color variations, number of rivets, and incorrect decals. Well, I never leave the inside of the cockpit except to make sure the gear is down, so those things are unimportant to me. I want the airplane to fly as I think the real airplane should fly. I think this model does.

I have sometimes been critical of Dean’s models. This one, in my opinion, is good. I am pleased to see how Dean has grown as a developer from his early fighters to today.


P.S. For those who fly VR. Trying setting your World View to 105%. To me this seemed to give a correct cockpit size.

[collensr]

Thank you for providing the PERFECT example of what I'm talking about.

I don't understand this comment.

[DaveKDEN]

This will (likely) be my last comment on this thread. If this was a freeware release, it would be hailed as fantastic and the developer would deserve to be praised. However, anyone who does payware add-ons for MSFS (or any other product) should fully expect reasonable criticism, when and where it's due (some of the YouTube comments have been absurd). If the criticism is due to a lack of understanding of the product's functions, that should be responded to with a polite description of the correct function. Having said that, I still think this product was released too early, with some issues that need to be addressed as soon as possible. For me, the biggest problem that should have been caught prior to release is the INCORRECT rudder response (yaws and rolls left when pressing the right rudder and visa versa). Pardon me, but that's just a sloppy miss. Hopefully it will be corrected soon, as for anyone who has rudder pedals, this error ruins the experience. Yes, I know that you typically don't use much rudder on this type of aircraft in flight (although the T-38 and F-5 can do rudder rolls). However, correct rudder response is a basic thing. There are other minor issues that need to be addressed as well, and I truly hope they are done so in a reasonable amount of time. I don't want to sound like I'm jumping on the slam fest wagon on SC/DC Designs, but payware products should be held to a higher standard. I still enjoy both the F-15 and F-16 (which have also been criticized), and they have provided numerous and timely updates to both of those products. I fully expect they will update the F-5 as well, which is why I'm not requesting a refund from JustFlight (at least at this time).

[jmig]

I think that if someone offers his goods for money, he should be punctual and take criticism, no need to be offended, this is not the nursery!

Just because someone can critize, doesn't mean he/she should.

Constructive critizism is designed to help improve a person, product, or service. Critizism for the sake of critizism, to me, is just someone trying to show how smart, knowledgeable, or important (at least in their own mind) they are. It does nothing to improve anything. It only sows resentment and acrimony.

[Tom Clayton]

I think that if someone offers his goods for money, he should be punctual and take criticism, no need to be offended, this is not the nursery!

There are two types of criticism:

Type 1
"I find that the roll rate is about x% too high as opposed to the rates referenced in the POH" or "The roll rate I remember as a pilot of this type is a little slower that what's modeled here. May I suggest toning it back about y%?"

Type 2
"What a piece of crap! This thing has the roll rate of an N1 turbine shaft! Even though he's never been near an airplane in his life, my father's, brother's, nephew's, cousin's, former roommate found a blog post that says it should be x, and I believe him!"



In other words...

Just because someone can critize, doesn't mean he/she should.

Constructive critizism is designed to help improve a person, product, or service. Critizism for the sake of critizism, to me, is just someone trying to show how smart, knowledgeable, or important (at least in their own mind) they are. It does nothing to improve anything. It only sows resentment and acrimony.

[tiger1962]

There are two types of criticism:

Type 1
"I find that the roll rate is about x% too high as opposed to the rates referenced in the POH" or "The roll rate I remember as a pilot of this type is a little slower that what's modeled here. May I suggest toning it back about y%?"

Type 2
"What a piece of crap! This thing has the roll rate of an N1 turbine shaft! Even though he's never been near an airplane in his life, my father's, brother's, nephew's, cousin's, former roommate found a blog post that says it should be x, and I believe him!"



In other words...

Thank you Tom. Let's all share our knowledge and experience, and not fall into the trap of cyber bullying.

[collensr]

I must confess that I have NO interest in flying military aircraft of any type in a civilian sim, for any reason. There I said it. I'm here because I believe that MSFS, more than any other sim before it, is a universal platform to be enjoyed by ALL who are interested in aviation. This website has some of the most experienced, knowledgeable and helpful simmers on the net right now, and I'm proud to be a member.
Dean has felt the need to comment on the official forums about what he feels has been unfair criticism of the F5E, and I feel obliged to agree with him.
There are far too many armchair pilots in this hobby as a whole who feel entitled to absolute accuracy in all aspects regardless of trademarks, copyrights, official secrets acts, you name it.
As Dean pointed out in his post, some criticism of the flight handling, specifically the roll rate, demonstrated a complete ignorance of the real life roll rate before some reviewer published that video.
I have never, and will never, watch a video by any of these self-appointed authorities on flight sim aircraft before deciding on a purchase. At my time of life, and FS experience, I know much better than they will ever do.
If anyone here wishes to actually ENCOURAGE developers to improve on their aircraft, cyber bullying is NOT the way to do it.
It's not Big and it's not Clever. It makes YOU look like a self-centered, ignorant newbie.
Please guys, let's treat all of our MSFS developers with more respect and give them some polite and constructive requests and suggestions which reflect our age and experience, instead of the childish tantrums which have been posted so far in this thread.

Sorry but I'm afraid I have a real problem with both the content and tone of this post. I have supported this forum for many years and I do not appreciate a member LECTURING ME IN CAPITALS. As consumers we are all entitled to give a view and so long as we conform with the rules of this place then that's all well and good.

The military element in MSFS is clearly becoming more and more popular as evidenced by the broadening product base and the quality of the products ( IFT/Heatwave F-14 being one example). The users of these products will be as discerning or otherwise as any other group.

This hobby is by definition dominated by "armchair pilots" because that's who buy home flight simulators ....we fly aircraft from our armchairs on our PCs or game controllers because we can't (for whatever reason) fly the real thing. Yes there are some members here who maybe ex or current pilots but that's generally not the case. Even then, as I have said before, MSFS is a game. It and the products in it are not a fully authenticated training mediums. Flight characteristics for individual aircraft can be replicated to some extent by computer code but not fully.

Like anything in life one has to be selective on what one listens to or watches. IMHO to say that you "know more than all the Utube reviewers will ever do" is a crass statement. Yes some are really poor but there are others who are excellent both in terms of their subject matter knowledge and their broadcasting and production skills. Those guys have a strong following (including many on here) and perform a very valuable and objective input to the hobby. However, as you never watch them you probably haven't seen any of these excellent productions.

Cutting to the guts of your post and agreeing with Zsolt - All developers (in fact any sales organisation) who put product out for purchase and use Social Media to promote their offerings must by definition expect a reaction - positive or otherwise and informed or uninformed. That is not "cyber-bullying". In the world we live in today today they cannot expect to 'moderate' that reaction.

Freeware is a different matter.

Dean has taken a position that he wants to address a centre-mid part of the market and that's commercially justifiable for him and indeed it's a proven success. However, he can't stop the more advanced market players also paying their hard earned for his product and giving a view on it.

By definition the quality and price point of his product is driven by the end user he is targeting. Therefore it seems obvious to me that if that product falls into more critical or discerning hands there will inevitably be an adverse reaction to be managed.

I think he can take a view on the reaction he gets. Ignore those that he deems unjustifiable and act on those where the buyer is adding value by identifying a true glitch or improvement. If you look at IndiaFoxtecho for example - Dino manages the good and bad criticism in the same calm and measured manner.

Boycott forums like this because you don't like the tones emanating is every Dev's choice. However, in this social media/online dominated world you live by the sword and die by the sword.

Dean shouldn't and doesn't need protection from forums like this to manage his audience or his business - ultimately all he needs do is check his bank account each night to see who's right and whose wrong!

[tiger1962]

Freeware is a different matter.

A very revealing remark. Freeware is exempt from scorn and ridicule? Why?

[ZsoltB]

Sorry but I'm afraid I have a real problem with both the content and tone of this post. I have supported this forum for many years and I do not appreciate a member LECTURING ME IN CAPITALS. As consumers we are all entitled to give a view and so long as we conform with the rules of this place then that's all well and good.

The military element in MSFS is clearly becoming more and more popular as evidenced by the broadening product base and the quality of the products ( IFT/Heatwave F-14 being one example). The users of these products will be as discerning or otherwise as any other group.

This hobby is by definition dominated by "armchair pilots" because that's who buy home flight simulators ....we fly aircraft from our armchairs on our PCs or game controllers because we can't (for whatever reason) fly the real thing. Yes there are some members here who maybe ex or current pilots but that's generally not the case. Even then, as I have said before, MSFS is a game. It and the products in it are not a fully authenticated training mediums. Flight characteristics for individual aircraft can be replicated to some extent by computer code but not fully.

Like anything in life one has to be selective on what one listens to or watches. IMHO to say that you "know more than all the Utube reviewers will ever do" is a crass statement. Yes some are really poor but there are others who are excellent both in terms of their subject matter knowledge and their broadcasting and production skills. Those guys have a strong following (including many on here) and perform a very valuable and objective input to the hobby. However, as you never watch them you probably haven't seen any of these excellent productions.

Cutting to the guts of your post and agreeing with Zsolt - All developers (in fact any sales organisation) who put product out for purchase and use Social Media to promote their offerings must by definition expect a reaction - positive or otherwise and informed or uninformed. That is not "cyber-bullying". In the world we live in today today they cannot expect to 'moderate' that reaction.

Freeware is a different matter.

Dean has taken a position that he wants to address a centre-mid part of the market and that's commercially justifiable for him and indeed it's a proven success. However, he can't stop the more advanced market players also paying their hard earned for his product and giving a view on it.

By definition the quality and price point of his product is driven by the end user he is targeting. Therefore it seems obvious to me that if that product falls into more critical or discerning hands there will inevitably be an adverse reaction to be managed.

I think he can take a view on the reaction he gets. Ignore those that he deems unjustifiable and act on those where the buyer is adding value by identifying a true glitch or improvement. If you look at IndiaFoxtecho for example - Dino manages the good and bad criticism in the same calm and measured manner.

Boycott forums like this because you don't like the tones emanating is every Dev's choice. However, in this social media/online dominated world you live by the sword and die by the sword.

Dean shouldn't and doesn't need protection from forums like this to manage his audience or his business - ultimately all he needs do is check his bank account each night to see who's right and whose wrong!

Absolutely true!
Thank you,

[ColoKent]

We're not yammering just hammering in the usual F-5 helmet type, which is the HGU-55/P. As a F-5 nut you should know that :



Alrighty then, if you must :



That's an old HGU-33/P. But if you notice, he is Saudi-Arabian... Maybe didn't have money enough to buy a HGU-55/P...

Only "usual" in the last half to two-thirds (~1988/1990ish-present) of it's life (BTW-- this is always an issue with the P-51/F-51 as well...and it will be an issue with the upcoming SSW T-33A-- because the airplanes' use spanned so many years and eras). I think an option for EITHER helmet would be the way to go, but I don't think that is going to happen. Whichever we end up with, I'll fly it as he improves it.

Kent