Digital Training Simulator

[Chlebakus]

"No, this is not attractive." but it is what is it. The thing is I don't complain about something when I understand why the situation is what is it. Am I 100% happy about the state DCS World is in now? No, I'm not... Would I be happier if some of the trainers would be a full blown monder fighters (Tornado, EF, Su-35, Su-34...)? Sure as hell I would be. Why don't I complain?

 

Because I realize that each and every DCS lvl aircraft is a simulation that is on par in terms of fidelity with "real" commercial/military simulators (and it is reasonable to assume that it surpass them in some aspects). And these simulators cost milions of dollars, and that's not because the developers are greedy for the sweet taxpayers money, but because this type of software is that complex and that expensive to develop.

I'm amazed that anybody is able to offer this kind of fidelity for $50, to such a small market as is ours and not to go bankrupt.

So I will not voice disappointment when people putting their livehood at stake are entering this market with smaller projects, testing the water and their ability to pull something like that off.

 

2 years ago there was no DCS World and there were no 3rd party devs. Is four trainer aircrafts, Uh-1, Mi-8, Mig-21, Sabre, Cobra better then we were 2 years ago? In my eyes yes. And as long as the DCS World is groving things are good in my eyes.

 

Make love, not war. Neither of us here can solute anything here. I like DCS. I will buy many of new modules. Even those that I point at in this forum. DCS is great and uncomparable to other sim games. We all owe a big thank to every single programmer.

 

(Jenom malá jazyková vložka. Spojení "in my eyes" v použitym významu je v angličtině nesmysl. Sice jsem si nejspíš právě udělal nepřítele, ale nemohl jsem si pomoct.)

[cichlidfan]

The fact that the plane selected is a less advanced trainer rather than a bleeding edge fighter is due to the realities of running a business, yes..

 

Also, we don't have any of the internal facts as to why this airframe was selected.. This forum will burn at the stake anyone that provides a less than perfect simulation of a plane so MAYBE (Pure speculation here on my part) maybe they have direct access to this plane.

 

Based on the things they don't know about the aircraft (as discussed in their threads), it would appear that they do not have access to the aircraft or an SME for it.

[outlawal2]

Based on the things they don't know about the aircraft (as discussed in their threads), it would appear that they do not have access to the aircraft or an SME for it.

 

Clearly you are incapable of looking beyond the fact that the selected aircraft does not make you happy and that there are MANY reasons why they may have selected it. Just because you don't know what those reasons are does not mean they don't exist or aren't valid..

[Python]

I couldn't agree less with the opening post. I am delighted that we will get getting advanced simulations of aircraft such as the Hawk and Tucano. Some people seem to think they are owed the aircraft they want to have for whatever reason, well the devs can make whatever they wish to make and whatever aircraft capture their enthusiasm. Ultimately this is what will lead to top quality products. I'm just happy we are getting anything extra outside of ED at this kind of level. Third parties are still quite new to DCS world so it does make sense to start with such aircraft and learn the basics before moving on to more advanced aircraft with far more detailed systems and flight characteristics etc.

 

Not to mention, there is another aspect to Combat and that is training. In fact that is the most important aspect, so if we end up with a Combat sim that can start you off at the bottom (In a tutor for example) And move you up through the ranks (Tucano >> Hawk >> Typhoon etc) learning basic flight and then more advanced stuff and weapons etc, well in my opinion that would be amazing!!! I can see why people would like to skip all of that and have the most advanced military aircraft right now, but you wouldn't have had them anyway. It isn't fair to suggest third party developers are somehow wasting their time. For those of us that want a little more than just to jump right into the cockpit of the latest fighters they are actually providing a pretty welcome service and I wish them all well. ED is making the F-18 as we speak.

 

Ultimately you don't have to buy the modules that don't interest you, just don't assume all of us feel the same way, I think DCS: World can become so much more than it is now and this is just the start... I can't wait to tear up the skies in my Hawk. :pilotfly:

[OutOnTheOP]

Personally, I don't see the problem with people "whining" about what aircraft is or is not being developed: it provides feedback to the developers on what we, the customers, want, and therefore points them in the direction of products likely to sell well- and results in the customers getting their hands on what they really want.

 

It's certainly more helpful than the alternative, "everything's awesome!" approach; the attitude that all development projects, ANY project, is a brilliant idea, and that we'll "buy anything made for DCS" is just kind of dumb... because if the developers know (or at least think) that we'll buy as many copies of DCS Hawk as we would of DCS F/A-18/Typhoon/Su27/whatever, then they have no reason to instead work on what we really want. If they perceive that they can make the same sales on a simple (and cheap to develop) product as on the more complex ones, they will forever churn out only the simpler ones... business sense and all. Feedback does matter, even if it gets tiring on the forums.

 

That said, I'm quite happy with the idea of zooming about in a DCS Hawk, and the F-86, and the MiG21... because I can think of interesting new possibilities for each.

 

What I see as a possible problem though, is that (as the OP mentioned), this is a bit of trainer jet overdose. How many of us really need more than one trainer jet? As far as sales go, I think what we'll see is the Hawk selling pretty well... and then when the others come out, people look at them and go "yeah... but I've already got a Hawk, and another trainer isn't sufficiently interesting to pay out for", and the companies developing the late-on-the-scene trainers getting hit in the pocketbook.

 

I agree that simple aircraft were best for starting points... but I think Belsimtek had the right idea: find an aircraft that is (system-wise) simple, but that is iconic, or was, in it's day, a premier combat aircraft. Anything 1940s-50s era would have been good choices (also probably a reason we're seeing so many WW2 offerings, most likely). I imagine that a Gloster Meteor or F9F Panther or MiG-15 or A-1 Skyraider or A-4 Skyhawk or early-model Jaguar (assuming I'm correct in recalling it was sans ground-mode radar) would be of comparable difficulty to develop as a Hawk or L39, but would sell much better, because they capture the public imagination (not least of which because they all are historically appropriate for at least one major conflict each- and OTHER aircraft applicable to those conflicts already exist in DCS, awaiting companions. Some, like the Skyraider and Meteor are applicable to two major conflicts!). I think the Hawk was a good idea (and plan to buy it)... but more armed trainers, of lower performance, following so quickly on it's heels? That doesn't seem like the greatest recipe for sales.

 

The only reason I can figure they would go with a bevy of trainers, yet pass up a juicy pick like the Skyraider (two major wars, huge time in service, very iconic, simple avionics) is that they had access to experts and performance data on the trainers... but I know for a fact there's still flying Skyraiders out there, so you don't run into the "there's no info available!" problems.

 

Just my two cents. *shrug*

Edited June 13, 2014 by OutOnTheOP

[Chlebakus]

Wow, that's the word!

[Rabbit_]

I couldn't agree less with the opening post. I am delighted that we will get getting advanced simulations of aircraft such as the Hawk and Tucano. Some people seem to think they are owed the aircraft they want to have for whatever reason, well the devs can make whatever they wish to make and whatever aircraft capture their enthusiasm. Ultimately this is what will lead to top quality products. I'm just happy we are getting anything extra outside of ED at this kind of level. Third parties are still quite new to DCS world so it does make sense to start with such aircraft and learn the basics before moving on to more advanced aircraft with far more detailed systems and flight characteristics etc.

 

Not to mention, there is another aspect to Combat and that is training. In fact that is the most important aspect, so if we end up with a Combat sim that can start you off at the bottom (In a tutor for example) And move you up through the ranks (Tucano >> Hawk >> Typhoon etc) learning basic flight and then more advanced stuff and weapons etc, well in my opinion that would be amazing!!! I can see why people would like to skip all of that and have the most advanced military aircraft right now, but you wouldn't have had them anyway. It isn't fair to suggest third party developers are somehow wasting their time. For those of us that want a little more than just to jump right into the cockpit of the latest fighters they are actually providing a pretty welcome service and I wish them all well. ED is making the F-18 as we speak.

 

Ultimately you don't have to buy the modules that don't interest you, just don't assume all of us feel the same way, I think DCS: World can become so much more than it is now and this is just the start... I can't wait to tear up the skies in my Hawk. :pilotfly:

 

You are totally off the point. Nobody is assuming, that rest of people here will feel the same. Shall I spell it in capital letters or what? This is not about forcing anyone to think the same. It is a discussion.

And suddenly saying, that training is part of the combat. Yes it is. But in real life. We are flying a damn game, You know. You don't have to have a training jet to not trash some multi-billion piece of hardware.

 

YES...as we got info from Pman, there is a vision of special campaign, where You will go through real training from trainer to multi-role fighter, but don't tell me, You knew it right from the beginning. There wasn't any info mentioning this before. And I really doubt, that every of these trainers will have its own training campaign and its "goal" combat jet.

 

Sorry, but You can say all of this only because You read it in this forum a few days ago. Because special training and ranks progress were never mentioned along with training jets, when developers were announcing it..

[Rabbit_]

Personally, I don't see the problem with people "whining" about what aircraft is or is not being developed: it provides feedback to the developers on what we, the customers, want, and therefore points them in the direction of products likely to sell well- and results in the customers getting their hands on what they really want.

 

It's certainly more helpful than the alternative, "everything's awesome!" approach; the attitude that all development projects, ANY project, is a brilliant idea, and that we'll "buy anything made for DCS" is just kind of dumb... because if the developers know (or at least think) that we'll buy as many copies of DCS Hawk as we would of DCS F/A-18/Typhoon/Su27/whatever, then they have no reason to instead work on what we really want. If they perceive that they can make the same sales on a simple (and cheap to develop) product as on the more complex ones, they will forever churn out only the simpler ones... business sense and all. Feedback does matter, even if it gets tiring on the forums.

 

That said, I'm quite happy with the idea of zooming about in a DCS Hawk, and the F-86, and the MiG21... because I can think of interesting new possibilities for each.

 

What I see as a possible problem though, is that (as the OP mentioned), this is a bit of trainer jet overdose. How many of us really need more than one trainer jet? As far as sales go, I think what we'll see is the Hawk selling pretty well... and then when the others come out, people look at them and go "yeah... but I've already got a Hawk, and another trainer isn't sufficiently interesting to pay out for", and the companies developing the late-on-the-scene trainers getting hit in the pocketbook.

 

I agree that simple aircraft were best for starting points... but I think Belsimtek had the right idea: find an aircraft that is (system-wise) simple, but that is iconic, or was, in it's day, a premier combat aircraft. Anything 1940s-50s era would have been good choices (also probably a reason we're seeing so many WW2 offerings, most likely). I imagine that a Gloster Meteor or F9F Panther or MiG-15 or A-1 Skyraider or A-4 Skyhawk or early-model Jaguar (assuming I'm correct in recalling it was sans ground-mode radar) would be of comparable difficulty to develop as a Hawk or L39, but would sell much better, because they capture the public imagination (not least of which because they all are historically appropriate for at least one major conflict each- and OTHER aircraft applicable to those conflicts already exist in DCS, awaiting companions. Some, like the Skyraider and Meteor are applicable to two major conflicts!). I think the Hawk was a good idea (and plan to buy it)... but more armed trainers, of lower performance, following so quickly on it's heels? That doesn't seem like the greatest recipe for sales.

 

The only reason I can figure they would go with a bevy of trainers, yet pass up a juicy pick like the Skyraider (two major wars, huge time in service, very iconic, simple avionics) is that they had access to experts and performance data on the trainers... but I know for a fact there's still flying Skyraiders out there, so you don't run into the "there's no info available!" problems.

 

Just my two cents. *shrug*

 

Finally someone who understand to this discussion. Thanks, it's very refreshing.

[Chlebakus]

I couldn't agree less with the opening post. I am delighted that we will get getting advanced simulations of aircraft such as the Hawk and Tucano. Some people seem to think they are owed the aircraft they want to have for whatever reason, well the devs can make whatever they wish to make and whatever aircraft capture their enthusiasm. Ultimately this is what will lead to top quality products. I'm just happy we are getting anything extra outside of ED at this kind of level. Third parties are still quite new to DCS world so it does make sense to start with such aircraft and learn the basics before moving on to more advanced aircraft with far more detailed systems and flight characteristics etc.

 

Not to mention, there is another aspect to Combat and that is training. In fact that is the most important aspect, so if we end up with a Combat sim that can start you off at the bottom (In a tutor for example) And move you up through the ranks (Tucano >> Hawk >> Typhoon etc) learning basic flight and then more advanced stuff and weapons etc, well in my opinion that would be amazing!!! I can see why people would like to skip all of that and have the most advanced military aircraft right now, but you wouldn't have had them anyway. It isn't fair to suggest third party developers are somehow wasting their time. For those of us that want a little more than just to jump right into the cockpit of the latest fighters they are actually providing a pretty welcome service and I wish them all well. ED is making the F-18 as we speak.

 

Ultimately you don't have to buy the modules that don't interest you, just don't assume all of us feel the same way, I think DCS: World can become so much more than it is now and this is just the start... I can't wait to tear up the skies in my Hawk. :pilotfly:

Maybe there is one missing fact. This is PC game. Someone could say it is not a game, but simulator. There is no reason why we cannot jump right into F-18 :thumbup:.

 

Training is nice asset but as mentioned before it is maybe not as necessary to have sooo many trainers. Because developers can do whatever they want but they might not get their reward. But maybe i am wrong.

 

And this is what it is. Our feedback. And not just about trainers.

[Pman]

Based on the things they don't know about the aircraft (as discussed in their threads), it would appear that they do not have access to the aircraft or an SME for it.

 

Was this aimed at us? If so I will respond, if not however then its not for me to respond to it.

 

It's certainly more helpful than the alternative, "everything's awesome!" approach; the attitude that all development projects, ANY project, is a brilliant idea, and that we'll "buy anything made for DCS" is just kind of dumb... because if the developers know (or at least think) that we'll buy as many copies of DCS Hawk as we would of DCS F/A-18/Typhoon/Su27/whatever, then they have no reason to instead work on what we really want. If they perceive that they can make the same sales on a simple (and cheap to develop) product as on the more complex ones, they will forever churn out only the simpler ones... business sense and all. Feedback does matter, even if it gets tiring on the forums.

 

What I see as a possible problem though, is that (as the OP mentioned), this is a bit of trainer jet overdose. How many of us really need more than one trainer jet?

 

The only reason I can figure they would go with a bevy of trainers, yet pass up a juicy pick like the Skyraider (two major wars, huge time in service, very iconic, simple avionics) is that they had access to experts and performance data on the trainers... but I know for a fact there's still flying Skyraiders out there, so you don't run into the "there's no info available!" problems.

 

Just my two cents. *shrug*

 

Ok a few points here to cover.

 

You seem to think that developing a trainer is an easy option, I can tell you that by the time the Hawk is done that the development costs could never be considered by anyone as cheap. Its easier than doing something like a full on front line jet but its certainly not cheap :p

 

As for the overdose, Again I ask you to bear in mind that all the 3rd parties (us included) have to learn as we go, Trainers are easier no doubt this is why devs are choosing them. Also perhaps some people like the AvioDev guys have close ties to those aircraft and just want to make them, and why not indeed :D

 

I'm glad the Skyraider got a mention as a few months back when I was researching what aircraft to do for DCS I did look into the Skyraider and I made a few enquiries to people who operate them and I didnt even get a reply from them. We can only work with people who want to work with us. If the owners/operators are not interested and we cant get access then this makes it alot harder.

 

Option A) Aircraft where you have complete access to Aircraft, Ground Crew and Pilots

 

or

 

Option B) Aircraft where you have to go by a manual you may find on the internet.

 

I know which I believe would produce a much more authentic aircraft. I spend alot of my day's talking to people who own and operate aircraft and the more people I can get "on board" with DCS the better as far as I am concerned. But especially for our first wave of prop aircraft it was considered essential that we can get direct access to the above.

 

 

 

YES...as we got info from Pman, there is a vision of special campaign, where You will go through real training from trainer to multi-role fighter, but don't tell me, You knew it right from the beginning. There wasn't any info mentioning this before. And I really doubt, that every of these trainers will have its own training campaign and its "goal" combat jet.

 

Sorry, but You can say all of this only because You read it in this forum a few days ago. Because special training and ranks progress were never mentioned along with training jets, when developers were announcing it..

 

Actually we have spoken about it many times before, We even started a sign up sheet in January : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=119308

 

Maybe there is one missing fact. This is PC game. Someone could say it is not a game, but simulator. There is no reason why we cannot jump right into F-18 :thumbup:.

 

Training is nice asset but as mentioned before it is maybe not as necessary to have sooo many trainers. Because developers can do whatever they want but they might not get their reward. But maybe i am wrong.

 

And this is what it is. Our feedback. And not just about trainers.

 

Please also bear in mind that we have only shown renders of the Tucano and the Tutor, Neither of which has been announced as a DCS product as yet. It is our intention to bring them to DCS but it is not confirmed yet.

 

Not everyone wants to get into a jet and just burn around until the engines explode, or spend all their time crashing a tail dragger because they dont know how to handle the aircraft.

 

I laid out our vision earlier in this thread, This is why we have gone down the path we have. As for the other Dev's I cant answer for them they may have different reasons :)

 

Hope this helps highlight some of our thinking on this topic, however I now feel that this subject has run its course and will leave you to your debate.

 

Regards

 

Pman

[Aginor]

Was this aimed at us? If so I will respond, if not however then its not for me to respond to it.

I don't think so, I think he was referring to the C-101 project.

 

EDIT:

Concerning the original question: It seems the AvioDev guys do know lots about the C-101 as used by Spain, but they have a hard time getting info about the CC version. So if people want it, it is probably not even that hard to build, they just need some info. Everybody can help gathering some. :)

Edited June 13, 2014 by Aginor

[Scrim]

I also don't agree, that You have to make a more simple aircraft to proceed to more complicated. You are testing it on the way anyway. There is no rule, You have to make Alpha Jet to be able to make Rafale. Sorry guys, but this is bullshit. If You are not going to make that progression campaign from trainer to combat jet, then do the combat jet right away. You must have all the info anyway, if You have it on the production list.

 

Yeah, no. That's what several of the developers say themselves. If you're calling BS on them for that, I'm gonna go ahead and say that you have nothing to base that on.

[Rabbit_]

Yeah, no. That's what several of the developers say themselves. If you're calling BS on them for that, I'm gonna go ahead and say that you have nothing to base that on.

 

I base that on many many simulators made in the past. Belsimtek also didn't make Robinson first and then started to work on Mi-8. I think it's based only on the approach to development and I'm not saying it's wrong, but I didn't see any special reason, why to have so many trainers.

[Rabbit_]

Actually we have spoken about it many times before, We even started a sign up sheet in January : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=119308

 

OK...I apologize for this. It just got under my radar. :) And TBH, You are the only company, who described the purpose of Your training jet.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Rabbit_

[winz]

I base that on many many simulators made in the past. Belsimtek also didn't make Robinson first and then started to work on Mi-8. I think it's based only on the approach to development and I'm not saying it's wrong, but I didn't see any special reason, why to have so many trainers.

No, they made the Uh-1 and tbh I don't think the Uh-1 is much more complicated than a trainer jet aircraft. It is a simple helicopter without any advanced electronic, able to cary just basic non-guided weapons, just like a trainer.

Then they made the Mi-8 which is one step above the Huey and similary, the Cobra is one step above the Hip...

Edited June 13, 2014 by winz

[Pman]

OK...I apologize for this. It just got under my radar. :) And TBH, You are the only company, who described the purpose of Your training jet.

no problem,

 

We try our best to communicate with the community as best we can as much as we can.

 

hence me being in this thread

 

Pman

[Rabbit_]

No, they made the Uh-1 and tbh I don't think the Uh-1 is much more complicated than a trainer jet aircraft. It is a simple helicopter without any advanced electronic, able to cary just basic non-guided weapons, just like a trainer.

Then they made the Mi-8 which is one step above the Huey and similary, the Cobra is one step above the Hip...

 

Yeah...simulate helicopter physics is piece of cake, man. :-)

And for example...Tricubic Studios is preparing to make Combat Helo (AH-64D Longbow Apache standalone). It means whole sim with environment, physics, helicopter systems, enemy units and everything. Mainly only three or four people are behind this. So that's what I say and I'm not telling You to accept it, but I would wait a little longer and get the combat jet right away.

I'm not even saying, You can make a BETA version and tune it on the go. Like Mi-8.

 

It's only a choice of developers. Yes,...they want to make trainer, ok. VEAO has the whole original idea behind it and that's something I didn't know and I apologized for it. But why to make shitloads of trainers to one sim, that is very mysterious for me.

[outlawal2]

Yeah...simulate helicopter physics is piece of cake, man. :-)

And for example...Tricubic Studios is preparing to make Combat Helo (AH-64D Longbow Apache standalone). It means whole sim with environment, physics, helicopter systems, enemy units and everything. Mainly only three or four people are behind this. So that's what I say and I'm not telling You to accept it, but I would wait a little longer and get the combat jet right away.

I'm not even saying, You can make a BETA version and tune it on the go. Like Mi-8.

 

It's only a choice of developers. Yes,...they want to make trainer, ok. VEAO has the whole original idea behind it and that's something I didn't know and I apologized for it. But why to make shitloads of trainers to one sim, that is very mysterious for me.

 

And how long has THAT project been out there? And how long do you suppose it will be before they complete it? I personally would rather fly something in this decade rather than wait for a project that may be completed by the time I am 80... (Or worse yet, become vaporware like so many other overly ambitious projects have become..)

 

Sorry, but that example will probably be shown to reinforce the fact that biting off more than you can chew will kill a developer...

[Exorcet]

It's only a choice of developers. Yes,...they want to make trainer, ok. VEAO has the whole original idea behind it and that's something I didn't know and I apologized for it. But why to make shitloads of trainers to one sim, that is very mysterious for me.

Technically yes, it is a choice, but that does not mean they could make a full fledged fighter in the same time span.

 

If I remember one of the early devs, IRIS, was set on making the F-14 before they transitioned to the BD-5. I think something similar happened to most devs. The fighters were announced first, but then trainers became the initial offering. One exception being the MiG-21 which has taken a really long time.

[Scrim]

I base that on many many simulators made in the past. Belsimtek also didn't make Robinson first and then started to work on Mi-8. I think it's based only on the approach to development and I'm not saying it's wrong, but I didn't see any special reason, why to have so many trainers.

 

So you call BS on the devs who know infinitely more about developing modules than you, basing it on having played other sims? Thanks for making my point.

[Rabbit_]

So you call BS on the devs who know infinitely more about developing modules than you, basing it on having played other sims? Thanks for making my point.

 

No...I called that on people who write it down here just to defend their opinion. And You are still missing the main reason of this forum. It's difficult to explain to someone, who doesn't want to listen.

[Pman]

And how long has THAT project been out there? And how long do you suppose it will be before they complete it? I personally would rather fly something in this decade rather than wait for a project that may be completed by the time I am 80... (Or worse yet, become vaporware like so many other overly ambitious projects have become..)

 

Sorry, but that example will probably be shown to reinforce the fact that biting off more than you can chew will kill a developer...

 

We have said it many times before, We have multiple teams working on multiple projects at once.

 

Anything we do with warbirds / hawk / typhoon / whatever has minimal effect on any other project.

 

The ACTS programme will have no effect on release dates overall but is more of a theme rather then a dedicated DCS package. It will allow people to experience everything there is to experience about Fast Jet Fighter Training.

 

Technically yes, it is a choice, but that does not mean they could make a full fledged fighter in the same time span.

 

If I remember one of the early devs, IRIS, was set on making the F-14 before they transitioned to the BD-5. I think something similar happened to most devs. The fighters were announced first, but then trainers became the initial offering. One exception being the MiG-21 which has taken a really long time.

 

See the above :)

 

Pman

[Rabbit_]

And how long has THAT project been out there? And how long do you suppose it will be before they complete it? I personally would rather fly something in this decade rather than wait for a project that may be completed by the time I am 80... (Or worse yet, become vaporware like so many other overly ambitious projects have become..)

 

Sorry, but that example will probably be shown to reinforce the fact that biting off more than you can chew will kill a developer...

 

Yes....but if they would make only the helicopter, it would be thousand times faster. And that is my point. And if You follow their blog, You know how many personal disasters they had to go through and they are still going. First Steam version is just weeks from releasing.

[Rabbit_]

We have said it many times before, We have multiple teams working on multiple projects at once.

 

Anything we do with warbirds / hawk / typhoon / whatever has minimal effect on any other project.

 

The ACTS programme will have no effect on release dates overall but is more of a theme rather then a dedicated DCS package. It will allow people to experience everything there is to experience about Fast Jet Fighter Training.

 

 

 

See the above :)

 

Pman

 

He was writing about Combat Helo. Not Your project. :-)

[Pman]

He was writing about Combat Helo. Not Your project. :-)

Ah my misunderstand then

 

apologises

 

Pman