Ala13_ManOWar

Good news the T-45 is getting some love. It felt like a great but derelict mod. Thanks for the heads up.

Emm, you didn't read my whole answer. I said you're dead in an IFR IMC condition. No, you won't "get used" to feelings and paying attention only to instruments despite sim experience, what you feel in that situation is too overwhelming for a first time.

Uff, you're mixing here lots of different things, too much to talk about, and even some of them far beyond my knowledge, I'm just a PPL pilot, remember. But I'll try to address some of them, Yes, obviously I'm talking here about GA and piston engines, of course I am. Because you asked about the using the Yak-52 as a training platform, remember? Airliners, which I'm only acquainted to being a passenger myself, are a very different kettle of fish, but we weren't talking about those in the first place, were we? Of course many pilots have died for trying to fly by the seat of their pants when they shouldn't have been doing that. But no worries here, if you're a passenger either in a GA or airliner aircraft and you have to take control to land without being yourself an experienced pilot in the type you're mostly already dead no matter how skilled in a flight sim you are, Ok? But that wasn't your first question. Then again, the sentence you've heard about means you shouldn't fly by the seat of your pants in situations where you aren't supposed to, and those are mostly IFR ones, specially real IFR ones meaning IFR in IMC conditions because you know airliners do fly IFR all the time no matter how weather is. And, while flying IFR you must rely on instruments no matter what because, used to it or not, your body sensations lie to you (which you study in the health subject in you PPL or CPL), your ear lies to you, your gravity feeling (proprioception) lies to you, whenever you don't see a thing you feel lots of things and all of those are mostly fake sensations your body tells you because you don't see a thing, so you must rely on instruments no matter what your body tells you. Yes, that's a thing. No, that wasn't what we were talking about, nor my advice if you ever are in that situation mate... XD Not to make this too long. Yes, airliners can be easier "to fly" than piston single engine. No, still you won't land those easier than the GA aircraft without previous experience, there're too much to handle there without experience mate, really a lot. I wouldn't even dare to try myself unless there is absolutely nobody else to do it. About your last question, why not? Because you aren't used to that feeling at all, it's not a game there and no matter the plane, even in a small slow prop plane, you haven't seen and felt the ground coming to you, ever, and you don't know how you'll respond and feel until you find yourself in the situation. I've taken squadmates to fly and they, even being very good and skilled pilots in the sim, wouldn't dare to almost touch the controls despite me telling them to do it and showing how it is. They take the controls and try to move them millimetres like they were in their home joysticks thinking the plane response would be huge, turns out it's not and they don't expect that. On top of that, think the bumps, the shake, the vibration, even the smells, all of them are real there and without previous experience you don't know them and how you as a person will react. It could be fine, or it would be horrible, and you won't know until the time comes. Watching the ground come to you, the feel of a slide like (yes, a toboggan to make me clear) when you're crossing the threshold and pulling to flare, that's a lot for a first time experience and with only sim experience it's hard to cope with. It's not the sim doesn't help a lot in knowing so many aspects of the aviation operation in before hand, but those you'll get to know only when you do it by yourself, not in the sim nor even because I try to explain to you how it is, you have to feel it in person to know. Until that, you don't really know what to expect in that regard.

Hmmm, well, for instance to go to flight school and fly from day one, no, you don't need. But remember what I said previously, the instructor is actually flying himself the plane, not you, even if you don't notice that, at least with a good instructor. To fly for yourself in the usual hypothetical situation Airplane! movie like, remember what I also already told. It's not only getting used to controls (which can make really tricky to use some of the controls you actually need, but well, yeah, you could somewhat use them), but be aware either you're not used, not just to use those controls, you aren't used to actual flying sensations and flying by the seat of your pants, which goes far beyond the old motto. Flying by the seat of your pants is an actual reality up there, you need to feel the plane and its behaviour. You could get used to controls stiffness in five minutes (or more than that, but ok), yeah, but you won't get used to flying sensations in five minutes because while learning that happens when you already have 15-20, or even more flight hours and actually you don't just stop learning those the day you're examined. In five minutes, or even a whole hour to say something if the situation were real on a real aeroplane, you or anyone would get used to those at all. Problem is you need to be used (which you aren't with sims), to climb, dive, banking, everything, and not just that but need to be used to listen to the engine which sounds really different than movies and all the mods out there (people making those mods say they're "realistic sound" when they mean movie like sounds, they aren't realistic at all, you don't listen to plane engine in dolby surround yet there are hundreds of sound subtleties you need to know). Up there you even know when the aircraft is climbing or diving even slightly while cruising by the sound of the engine, which I don't know if can currently be reproduced in sims, but it plays a major role in your RL flying skills, not to mention while gliding to the runway while attempting to land. Those are the various nuances and subtleties I meant in my first post, you can't learn those from pc sims because they're hardware limited and those absolutely subtle quirks just aren't there. But Ok, let's say in an absolutely good day, you are plenty of time in the plane to get used, at least a little bit, to all those little details and you manage to more or less get a grip of the aeroplane to try to land (which is the trickiest situation, flying high up and levelled everybody knows to "fly"), well, it can be really tricky, cumbersome, and bumpy. You actually don't know to land properly from a sim, you aren't used to see the terrain getting close to you and at what speed, you aren't used to the bouncing of the aeroplane, etc, but depending on your own skills and how much you know, from sim or not just sims but how much of an aviation geek you are so know plenty, or let's say enough, yes maybe you could do it with no previous experience even if it's a somewhat traumatic situation and experience. Not to mention when your life is at stake it definitely helps either . But a last thought. Even if you manage to get to ground safe, not sure if sound, remember something sims don't tell you either. In a Cessna (the usual ) the landing gear is actually sturdier than you are… In a hard landing you could really hurt yourself, specially your back and neck, while the aircraft could be intact and that's either something you don't know from sims at all. Some people without RL experience on the internet forums would probably say something like that in a sim "is unrealistic", but that's real life.

Well, actually you don't need to know because while learning you have an instructor sitting besides you, but if we enter the "could you land it only with sim experience" question, that usually means doing it by yourself on you own with no assistance. And still, I believe it could be done (maybe not everyone…) with wide enough sim experience. But surviving doesn't mean you don't smash the plane onto the ground, and all of those little details .

P.S.: this was my baptism flight, yes I had never sat or flown a real aeroplane before, and I flew all the way. So it can be done…

Well, with Yak-52 if you want to learn "just" the absolute basics? Yes, it can be good enough to learn those basics, even to "learn to fly" and go there without previous RL experience and fly something without experience (with the instructor by your side, obviously), in a sunny, windless, good day. The thing is real life flying goes beyond those basics really quick, just with a minimal weather change. And those, even though DCS excels like any other sim in recreating atmospheric changes and how those affects the aircraft behaviour and performances (an usually overlooked aspect of DCS), are too many, too subtle, and too much to learn from a sim which only gives you a pc experience with home controls. Because this, one of the most overlooked areas and a huge difference between pc sims and RL, are the controls itself… what it shocked me the most in that first experience I had was how the controls behaved and felt!! I didn't expect the yoke, or pedals, or even the trim wheel to be so hard to move, which in the real plane isn't something bad at all, it prevents you from overcontrolling especially the rudder pedals. But it's shocking if you hadn't felt that before even if you expect it. An ULM for instance has way lighter controls, that wouldn't be so different than your own home controls if you have long stick and regular pedals, but a simple Cessna? you don't expect how those controls feel and perform. And that's something everyone trying to answer the all times favourite question in flight sims, "would I be able to land/fly a real aeroplane with just my sim experience", always overlook. So, you can't learn it all because for starters you can't have that same feeling at home with the controls. The other thing you don't expect is moving yourself with those controls movements. You think you're doing a nice, gentle, banking turn for instance like in the sim, but when you look at the artificial horizon what you think is a regular 30º turn as you do in sims is actually a 15º turn . Now I think and recall my experience, you don't expect either how tight and yet slack the controls in real aeroplanes are. In Cessnas for instance ailerons have lots of slack, while pitch control is way tighter and responsive. You don't know that in a sim for sure. Or the oposite, the time I flew some minutes a Tiger Moth the ailerons response was heavy and a bit hard, but pitch control felt like you could loop the aeroplane just sneezing (a bit like the Spitfire is in DCS when you don't adjust the controls, yes, but worse when you're in RL). About the Yak-52 I can't say much, I've been around it several times, never got the chance to fly in it, but if you ever get the chance at ~500$ an hour, expect those controls to be quite heavy compared to any home flight gear. So, in short, this is what I meant when I said "you can't learn it all", which doesn't mean you can't learn anything. You can learn a lot of things in the sim, actually I did as I told, it's just you aren't in the real environment and all of those nuances can only be learnt by being there.

Well, about airliners I haven't the faintest, but GA aircraft has happened, don't know if "many" times, but it happens from time to time. I recall someone having a flight with a friend and the friend fainted (you know like the joke, but it wasn't a joke) and ATC, or more probably some pilot, in the radio managed to take him back to ground. Here in my city actually it happened to an ULM not so many years ago. A local couple was having a flight and the husband died from heart attack. ATC managed to bring the wife back to ground just with radio instructions even though she hadn't any idea about flying despite her husband being a private pilot. Of course the great thing is she managed to connect and talk throw the radio, and ULM have no need or obligation to have a radio, even less they are allowed to use it among regular traffic, but she managed to do so and ATC led her by radar to the city airport so she could have a better chance (3000m/10000ft long RWY, you know), and I know she had a hard time (not to mention having your dead husband's body sitting on your side) but she made it. So airliners, dunno, but GA aircraft yes and it's happened. I'm sure there are even more stories about that out there. So, yeah, this.

yeah, I said many people wouldn't even dare even with some knowledge, totally true. It's not necessarily they're scared, but they respect it too much to even try. Anyhow, I did it , but it was good old Cessna…

Yep, and in the 90s it was the most asked question among flight simmers, and from simmers to real pilots, could I land a real aircraft just with my sim experience? Old grandpa stories… P.S.: and from my own experience, yes, you could in good weather conditions and no emergencies, as said back in the 90's either . But, be aware not all flight simmers are equally bold, and while ones could do it others are reluctant to even try if ever given the opportunity, it occurred to me when I had a flight with a simming colleague, really good virtual pilot but he wouldn't dare to try…

Yes, but if you're interested in getting involved in RL aviation, no matter just for fun or professionally, DCS is a very good entry point since you'll learn real stuff and not parallel universes physics and FM like others flight sims out there are. You won't learn it all, you can't from a gaming software, but it's very good stuff to learn from the basics. As I told you, I had many years of "just simulation" experience when I got my license and I flew all the way from starting the aircraft (first time a C172S I had no idea of despite it's a very common ship even on sims) to landing since my very first flight (with an instructor at your side, which is who actually flies the aircraft, but you'll learn and notice that only later on) and I didn't even learned in DCS, I learned with other older and quite lower sims. But, even with my quite ample simulation experience to that point, I didn't take anything for granted, I went to flight school like I knew nothing and wanting to be taught "from zero", it was just I was not at that zero point so I knew what instructors asked me to do so really quite easier to me, but I wanted to listen to every aspect I was told, known for me or not because I wanted to be told all the nuances and subtleties a real life operation has compared to simulation. In short, be humble and listen to everything you're told, known or not, expected or not, and especially when it confronts what you already know, has read or listened before because there you're facing real life and actually your life and maybe others' lives at stake. So, if you want to learn from absolute scratch only with a PC gaming software absolutely everything to be a real pilot, no, currently and for the time being you won't just using pc software (or even professional simulators or software, which are used to train, not to learn from scratch). Does it help though and it really eases the learning curve and you get better and faster real experience if you use a simulator like DCS is on top of your flight school? Yes, it totally does, if that's your concern and the question why you started this thread. Absolutely this .

Yep, I'd totally be into a little bird dog, with the training possibilities plus Nam era missions. That'd be a blast. Not to derail the discussion. To OP @dcn, yeah, well, DCS (or any other sim, but DCS is probably the best from a pure simulation PoV) can teach you lots of things, but flying in RL from scratch and solely using the simulator? Well, I can tell you my own experience. When DCSW started to be I happened to be getting my PPL license. Actually I had to "unlearn" some things I had "learned" in simulation, but not in DCS but the other 2001 old brand. Actually, I was flying by myself from start when I got to the school, and even in my baptism flight a friend of mine gifted to me which led to get my license, and that was all due to my simulator experience. BUT I clearly realized later I didn't actually knew how to properly fly only with the simulation, with my "simulator experience" I landed the aircraft incredibly smooth and nice from the very beginning for instance, turns out that's not how you properly land an aircraft due to RL considerations you don't mind in sims… But well, all the things you learn with simulations are nice and even the ground tests you have to pass to get the license were incredibly smooth, let's say I had half of it already learned from simulation and just pure aviation geekness. So yeah, it helps to some extent, you have to be careful though and not think you already know it all and it's enough because it's not since there are lots of things either that you don't learn in sims because you don't need to, practical things, knowledge of the machine, knowledge of the environment you fly in, but all of those and many more just aren't there and cannot be in a PC because they're useless, at least in our current PC environment. Then when P-51D first came to be in 2012 I already had my license and was trying to solo in a C172RG, which I found terribly close in engine management to that P-51 (I liked better that first FM, to be honest) and ground handling despite the differences (tricycle vs tail dragger) were pretty close in inertias, the weight of the thing you feel, and all of that. Even the small C152 you learn in helped me a lot since you have to get ahead in the turns with your feet, to get into the turn and specially to stop the turn which happened to be how you had to manage P-51D back then!! In this case my license and RL experience helped me enjoy the Pony from the very beginning, but I'm not sure that sim experience would had helped me IRL had it happened the other way around and I had flown the P-51 sooner than I got my license. We'll never know anyway. TL/DR - So, long story short, yes, you don't learn it all and from scratch to fly from a sim, but it helps a bit if you don't fool yourself thinking you're already a pilot and listen to your instructors trying to keep you alive. But, aren't we all here for the fun of it? flying small planes and trainers is fun!! I like them in DCS because this environment gives the closest experience to RL with regards to physics and FM I know of, even though you aren't a pilot out of it, so what!! why not have them in DCS? Of course they're fun, and can help people in the proper hands if you have someone to help to start with all of it, so why not?

I'd be all in for that. C152-172 would be perfect, so T41 Mescalero for those wanting it to be a military aircraft .

I know Rudel. BTW, I did read that back when he wrote it. But it's deeply annoying how every now and again people write their essays on "why I leave DCS because devs don't do what I like how I like…", and then again those threads go on for months without an end with people really concerned and thinking about "leave or stay" like that was important. And I mean, yeah, we all do go through whatever it is and go and come back. I don't fly DCS right now since I can't remember when due to personal reasons, life and those silly things happening all the time, you know. Ok, so I don't fly, I can't fly, I whatever you wanna call it because I'm unable to do so or whatever. But who cares!!! It's a damn game, and entertainment, a pastime. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't, but, giving that much of an importance to a hobby is stupid on itself!!

Ok, bye bye drama queen. We won't miss you whatsoever…

Wow, used those loooong time ago. Didn't know they were still a thing nowadays, are they?

Actually, there is a case of one person being arrested and imprisoned for trying to get classified manuals from ebay. And he was an old developer from ED. But he was sentenced and jailed in US, not in Russia... That's a sensitive matter mates, despite the appearance of openness with all the modern modules we have.

And we already got the F-5E!! one down to go... I believe UH-1H was mentioned to be getting these upgrades, maybe next one. F-86 and MiG-15 need them for sure, all the old Belsimtek stuff needs it for sure. But warbirds were mentioned either.

I'd buy it, U-2 is a so nice little bird.

Yep!! I told so many time ago, but people back then didn't pay attention to that. IMHO those early jet aeroplanes with limited radar and electronics equipment were the most interesting to fly from a simulation point of view, the most challenging for sure, and since they are now way outdated, the easier to find and get information about in order to make proper modules with almost a 100% accuracy since they all are now pretty much out of service (MiG-21 aside...). From a simulation fan perspective, to me that's one of the most interesting eras to simulate and fly in. But when I said so back in time people were asking for Hornets, Vipers, Eagles, Tomcats, and so on, which in the end are nice but since they're all still in service it's not possible to fully simulate them without shortcomings. And after all those appeared, apparently only now people realize those modules are limited by military secret so they aren't fully modelled at all, not even the long gone Tomcat . Then again they're nice to have, Ok, but flying a computer isn't as interesting as those early jets which were mostly a WWII prop plane with a jet engine and the pilot still counts. About the other subject spoken here, mates I'll say a very, very unpopular opinion, but Starfighter was what it was, an stratospheric Mach 2 interceptor with amazing climb abilities, and that was a cold war scenery imagined by people in their offices but IRL it never happened… then they realized it wasn't a very realistic scenery, but the money it cost were very real... , they tried to turn Starfighter into what it was not, just see F-104C doing CAS, so low level and slow flying trying to bring bombs into ground targets, and that wasn't what a wingless rocket aircraft was designed for… Starfighter is a really beautiful rocket with amazing performances, but it was designed for what it was designed and all of the other stuff it was used for were just stopgaps. Don't get me wrong, I want this module as many just because the amazing performances and the challenge to fly with it, it could be really interesting to master, but historically it was what it was and only people flying in a computer 50-60 years later will find out things it could be used for... from the comfort of their homes and without the risk of not coming back home mates.

1. true, but bear in mind the short time of service and low number of aeroplanes involved helped a lot with that 2. I wouldn't really know if they "ever" performed any at all, but it's true they mostly were interceptors for sure. Still, there're a few pictures of them with locally produced Mk.83 bombs loaded (those BR.500 painted in orange you can see in C-101, yeah), maybe just tests for the bombs themselves or whatever, don't really know. Since they obviously weren't ever used in any conflict, well, you could say they weren't used in ground attack role. They trained a little bit, guns mostly, but "used" in the role? well, you know.

... quite true ...

Yeah, apparently you don't read the forums a lot... F5 had some problems, I mean, it had them, RWR was broken for years, radar wasn't properly working since who knows what patch, yeah old textures is the least of our problems but they were there and some people complained also about that mate (including the cockpit reflection textures)... and so, and so. You mean "there's no problem" since quite recent patches which addressed some of those limping problems, years long problems in some cases. Yeah, right now it's not the worse module about that (because those recent patches) but still it was in need of some renewal for sure. I always liked F-5, it's a small simple aeroplane easy to handle yet hard to master and quite nice to my taste. This new revamp was definitely needed and a very welcome one. Anyhow, what I was trying to point out is how they work internally without noise and all of a sudden things happens. It's not new, it's happened before, but some people forget that it happens and things are going on whether we know them or not. Sincerely, I rather prefer the "without noise" launch than the ultra hype thing this and that "in the future" but since software is so volatile, today it's going well and tomorrow a bad stopper has put them in months of hard work without apparent movement yet, even if they told us we couldn't the internals of it nor we can do a thing about it whenever it happens. Anyhow, in the end the work gets done without any ado but we get it in due time anyway... Sincerely I like that way more than just plain hype. But all the people complaining for years (yes, not one day, or week, or even month, years...) forget their complaining and when we got whatever it is nobody says a thing about "ah, yes, just yesterday I complained again but we finally got this or that, thanks for the hard work to make it happen, I was wrong yesterday, last week or last month...", but no, not a single word, yet complains keep there forever... and so the bad feeling on people... About the other subject, the P-51 got a 3D model revamp not long ago together with new textures, kind of the same for 109, and Spitfire and 190A also got some new textures and 3D model fixes not long ago. Still are those old modules which would be welcome to get a v2.0 like we got here? Yes, totally. And IIRC some mods said in the forums those will eventually get their overhaul either. We just don't know when or how is it going if they're already working on it, or not, because, to be honest, 3D guys here have a lot of work to do with older modules in need of v2.0 (UH-1 perhaps? or whatever of them...). I mean, it's obvious they work internally without noise, things happens and we got them. Some day (who knows when) we'll get those, even the ones we already know they're working in!! Vulkan perhaps? or the long awaited dynamic campaign? or now the new fog has been released, new clouds and new weather engine they talk long ago? or, now the super carrier flight directors are released, the airfield crews they told us also long ago? not to mention the new comms for the whole maps and not only super carrier... I mean, we do know they work in lots of things at the same time, some of them are easier to implement, some of them are really hard to get there, yet the day we less expect them we get them!! and when we got nice long awaited things people tend to forget how hard it is to develop all of that and how long it took for them to got us there. The next week after a huge release some people start complaining again about "they don't work on anything, they probably dropped this or that and said nothing, I can't wait for this or that and it's taking forever...", people has so short term memory... Yet we got things, and those complains, as said before and what I was trying to say after all, are just an "expectation management" problem and anticipation from some users, because objectively we do get new things even when we don't expect them or we have already forgotten they were working on them...

Yes, anticipation and expectations are like that if you allow them to drag you there. Totally true. Still, those feelings aren't a real fact from what we can possibly know out here, we just don't know, we expect too much and imagine/invent also too much out of thin air since we know nothing . Just a tip, we've known today the F-5 module v2.0 is coming do DCS next week... from we've known earlier than that, what people was saying, "they've forgotten this module...", "it's absolutely abandoned, horrible module...", "They said it'd fix it sometime, we will see it after I'm retired..." , "absolutely garbage of a module, not worth it...", and so, so, so on mate. Not only they were working at it (as said, just long ago...) despite whatever people complained (and yes, the module was in desperate need of an update, totally true), but the work has gone way faster than could be expected and we get it next week. Yet we didn't know it because... they were working instead of talking. Do you get my point, right?

I totally get the example, and yes I can think of some other software out there with pretty much those conditions, which would definitely be so annoying and frustrating had I invested in that other software. Yes, I'm with you if you've being one of those space "investors" out there and I feel you pain, totally mate. But, you bear with me now. Here, frustration only comes from anticipation and expectations management, not because I've invested whatever the quantity in software with the "promise" of something amazingly good in a distant future which never comes to be. Here, yes, we've yet bought other products in the line of WWII stuff, amazing ones and pretty usable despite our willingness for even more content in that line, which I can relate too because I like it too. But those aren't even from a same theatre as we're talking here, which is a new theatre expected to come at some point, but not yet there, and when it comes it'll come pretty much fleshed out from what we know so far, a map, two carriers, two modules related to the theatre, ground and sea assets, and what not (and it might come it all out at the same time, or not... who knows...). Besides, some of the stuff we already have could be used in there, either? Yeah, sure, some of it will be fitting and usable either in this theatre to come, which will contribute to the fleshing out of the thing. I mean, sure, totally. But the other way around, until we have it and those other things which we know are coming are released? We don't have them, we haven't "invested" a cent on it, and we can enjoy the stuff we already have without a single problem more than our willingness to get the new stuff and try it on right away. It's not like we can't play Europe without a Corsair and a Hellcat, which yes, took part in D-day, but only in a minor rol so it's not like we are lacking that part we "need" badly. Some other stuff would be quite more "necessary" to the theatre we already have before those. So, two pretty much separated and relatively unrelated theatres, we have one which could be more fleshed out but it's fine as it is, and the other one not released yet and I haven't paid a cent for it. I still don't see why should I feel outraged because it's taking more time than I would like, which is the only reason to be outraged for, hence expectations and out of control willingness for something I don't have already. But I can't clearly see were I'm supposed to feel entitled about feeling outraged like I had already paid anything of a product I'm not getting. I haven't paid a single cent mate... what you talk about are some unfulfilled expectations I created myself in the first place since they didn't promise a thing nor I paid any pre-purchase of anything . So, what can we do in this situation? I just see one way out, wait patiently for it knowing it'll eventually come... and save money to buy it all the moment it's released specially if it all comes at once or almost at once, of course .