SC Designs F5E just released

[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

 

[DC1973]

I post here with great reluctance, simply to say that I intervened on the MSFS forums because I believe it was an SoH member, Denny, who posted a perfectly cheerful launch post about our F-5E Tiger on the MSFS forums and was promptly attacked by several of the usual suspects, called a liar, etc etc. I was e-mailed about it, and decided to defend him. I can say with 100% certainty that I have been much happier since I stepped away from all social media channels other than my own. Being able to enforce members to be polite, to not be passive-aggressive, and to respect each other has produced a community where it's clearly understood that poor behaviour and endless arguments don't happen, and those that try to conduct themselves in such a way find themselves banned. In total, I have around 15,000 followers on Discord, Facebook and YouTube, a list that is regularly pruned of non-active members where possible. It IS possible.

I like the way that Mike Tyson put it: "The Internet has made people too comfortable with insulting others and not being punched in the face for it."

Everybody has different opinions, preferences, desires, hopes and experience. Only on the Internet can expressing those become a never-ending "debate" about what should and should not be. SoH was one of the places where this seemed to happen less than others, at least in the past. A quick glance at the MSFS forums or AVSIM shows how bad it gets elsewhere.

I have learned that less is more. I don't get into toxic debates any more. I don't have to. I've become so successful that I am now about to retire, at just 51 years old. There's a big world out there and I'd like to see it before I start creaking too loudly Don't waste your time on such things as endless Internet debates that always become more corrosive with time. Use this space to share your hobby, and if you must debate somebody, I recommend the Stoic Method. Before debating, you must explain to your opposite number's satisfaction their argument, and they must do the same for yours. Only when you already understand your opposite's position, are you in a place to reach a compromise.

All the best, DC

 

[DennyA]

Appreciate you chiming in, Dean, and your support. I've been online since the BBS days and I really should know better than to get into it. I think I keep doing it not because I think I'm going to change the mind of someone who gets more enjoyment out of finding flaws than enjoying the amazing aspects of the hobby, but because I worry about the silent 90% who read the opinions in the topic and get negative impressions about products that might in fact have a lot of potential enjoyment to bring. But hey, that's not my responsibility.

You can take the guy out of game journalism (or kill it as a viable career, as the case may be), but you can't take the game journalist out of the guy.

Anyway, back to the F-5, I'm really enjoying it! I did turn down the sensitivity of my Winwing stick a bit (which I'd been needing to do anyway, and which improves all the planes I'm flying). The pit is amazing in VR, it flies like a fighter, and I've always thought it was one of the best-looking planes around.

Can't wait to see what folks do with the repaint kit!

 

[delta_lima]

This release is one I'm considering strongly given it's varied heritage, and more personally, I had a chance to backseat a D model in AETE at CFB Cold Lake in the fall of 1989. Was a thrill of a lifetime.

Overall, it looks pretty good - my key areas of focus are that the pedals and can the HSI be properly used (course and bearing adjustable for navigation). The helmet issue has been beaten to death - I'm happy with the HGU-33/P as that represents the time period I'm interested in ('70s - '80s), but would have not been disappointed if the newer -55 had been specified. Neither is wrong, so why it's being debated is beyond me.

If the flight modeling is decent, as it appears to be, I'm game to get it. FWIW, I had to drastically attenuate my joystick sensitivities in the sim - all planes flew terribly "out of the box" - a reflection on the sim, not the aircraft. The control sensitivity is a WIP with me, so I'll certainly hold judgement on the flight model until I'm fully satisfied sim is correctly intaking my control outputs.

I hope Dean does well with this release, as there's no shortage of either real - or quasi-real (CF-5, etc.) repaint opportunities.

Cheers all.

dl

 

[Priller]

Please delete this post. Dean has said it all.

priller

 

[Cazzie]

I post here with great reluctance, simply to say that I intervened on the MSFS forums because I believe it was an SoH member, Denny, who posted a perfectly cheerful launch post about our F-5E Tiger on the MSFS forums and was promptly attacked by several of the usual suspects, called a liar, etc etc. I was e-mailed about it, and decided to defend him. I can say with 100% certainty that I have been much happier since I stepped away from all social media channels other than my own. Being able to enforce members to be polite, to not be passive-aggressive, and to respect each other has produced a community where it's clearly understood that poor behaviour and endless arguments don't happen, and those that try to conduct themselves in such a way find themselves banned. In total, I have around 15,000 followers on Discord, Facebook and YouTube, a list that is regularly pruned of non-active members where possible. It IS possible.

I like the way that Mike Tyson put it: "The Internet has made people too comfortable with insulting others and not being punched in the face for it."

Everybody has different opinions, preferences, desires, hopes and experience. Only on the Internet can expressing those become a never-ending "debate" about what should and should not be. SoH was one of the places where this seemed to happen less than others, at least in the past. A quick glance at the MSFS forums or AVSIM shows how bad it gets elsewhere.

I have learned that less is more. I don't get into toxic debates any more. I don't have to. I've become so successful that I am now about to retire, at just 51 years old. There's a big world out there and I'd like to see it before I start creaking too loudly Don't waste your time on such things as endless Internet debates that always become more corrosive with time. Use this space to share your hobby, and if you must debate somebody, I recommend the Stoic Method. Before debating, you must explain to your opposite number's satisfaction their argument, and they must do the same for yours. Only when you already understand your opposite's position, are you in a place to reach a compromise.

All the best, DC

Or debate like the ancient Persians. In order to validate the subject debated on, they would first debate while sober, then debate again while drunk and come to a decision between the two.

Cazzie