Digital Training Simulator

[Abburo]

Whatever it happens there will be always somebody to complain... life rule!

[Pman]

Seeing as some of our projects are being discussed I thought I might chime in here if thats ok :)

 

With things like the Hawk, Tucano and Tutor we very much want to be able to recreate the experience that a real life pilot goes through when learning how to fly in the Royal Air Force. Sure we can all just jump in a Typhoon and crash to our hearts content right? Well what about being able to buy a pack of aircraft with a progressive campaign dealing with things that people have problems with. Crosswind landings, cross country navigation, Low Liz / ILS approaches, the list is endless.

 

We have a vision of being able to get a total newbie into the Tutor and with the assistance of a comprehensive campaign and assiatance from real world instructors be able to get them up to a good flying standard of handling the latest fighter jets. Also worth noting that we have said on a few occasions we have Gripen and Rafale firmly in our sights in the future as well as the Tornado.

 

So if you will, imagine being part of a 50 man squadron with help from us and some of our instructors being able to go through the training programme or through the OCU and learning how to use the aircraft as much as possible without having to actually sit in one. Having a team of friends who you can trust to use the aircraft and know how to handle situations that are presented to them.

 

ACTS is something that in the future we will be pushing hard (Air Combat Training School) and for that you do need training aircraft for it to be effective and have an authentic touch.

 

We believe in this vision and it is something that I and all the other members of VEAO have in mind for each of the trainer aircraft we are working on.

 

This is our vision

 

Pman

[Flying Penguin]

Im not sure you got the gist of my post. Trainers are a good place to develop modules that should (in principle) be easier to develop than full blown fighter jets (for example) I understand that. But who will buy them? Who will support the developer? I think its naive to think that all four studios that are doing the different trainers will be financially successful. Not unless they are building commercial simulators for the planes themselves.

 

No, I get your post. If a developer doesn't yet feel they can take on a fully featured jet like the Typhoon or a grey F-Jet without going the way of Kinney, then it would be foolish to try.

 

Yes they'll probably be more financially successful when they get to a more complex and sexy jet, but to get there they need to build the groundwork with the less sexy jets, whether they be trainers or old school (pre AI radar) jets

 

And there were enough people complaining that the F-86 was out of place to suggest it's not just trainers that will get a harder ride.

[Rabbit_]

Seeing as some of our projects are being discussed I thought I might chime in here if thats ok :)

 

With things like the Hawk, Tucano and Tutor we very much want to be able to recreate the experience that a real life pilot goes through when learning how to fly in the Royal Air Force. Sure we can all just jump in a Typhoon and crash to our hearts content right? Well what about being able to buy a pack of aircraft with a progressive campaign dealing with things that people have problems with. Crosswind landings, cross country navigation, Low Liz / ILS approaches, the list is endless.

 

We have a vision of being able to get a total newbie into the Tutor and with the assistance of a comprehensive campaign and assiatance from real world instructors be able to get them up to a good flying standard of handling the latest fighter jets. Also worth noting that we have said on a few occasions we have Gripen and Rafale firmly in our sights in the future as well as the Tornado.

 

So if you will, imagine being part of a 50 man squadron with help from us and some of our instructors being able to go through the training programme or through the OCU and learning how to use the aircraft as much as possible without having to actually sit in one. Having a team of friends who you can trust to use the aircraft and know how to handle situations that are presented to them.

 

ACTS is something that in the future we will be pushing hard (Air Combat Training School) and for that you do need training aircraft for it to be effective and have an authentic touch.

 

We believe in this vision and it is something that I and all the other members of VEAO have in mind for each of the trainer aircraft we are working on.

 

This is our vision

 

Pman

 

When You put it this way.....it would be a fantastic experience. I have to admit! I haven't put this topic here because of some hate on 3rd party developers. I just wanted to write my worries down here and wait, what others think.

But having a chance, to go through a "real pilot" training is a great idea and I can't wait, how it's gonna turn out.

[siipperi]

. Sure we can all just jump in a Typhoon and crash to our hearts content right?.

 

 

Right! Im still paying dem checks from crashing my a10. :smilewink:

[winz]

Im not sure you got the gist of my post. Trainers are a good place to develop modules that should (in principle) be easier to develop than full blown fighter jets (for example) I understand that. But who will buy them? Who will support the developer? I think its naive to think that all four studios that are doing the different trainers will be financially successful. Not unless they are building commercial simulators for the planes themselves.

Really? Most of gamers asks similiar question when they see DCS, who on earth would buy something requiring 700 page manual to explain the basics and weeks of training to get somewhat capable?

 

Every 3rd party project got these posts, by people feeling entitled and believing their preference is the preference of the rest of the community. Just because you're not interested in a trainer doesn't mean others are not. I, for a matter fact, am interested in a trainer aircraft.

 

With things like the Hawk, Tucano and Tutor we very much want to be able to recreate the experience that a real life pilot goes through when learning how to fly in the Royal Air Force. Sure we can all just jump in a Typhoon and crash to our hearts content right? Well what about being able to buy a pack of aircraft with a progressive campaign dealing with things that people have problems with. Crosswind landings, cross country navigation, Low Liz / ILS approaches, the list is endless.

I really, really hope you'll be able to pull it off. Because on paper this sounds fantastic and something that would be a cool experience.

[Sabre-TLA]

Once you are trained up, you can try our Qualification Campaign and test your knowledge.

[Chlebakus]

OK, this seems to make sense. Flight school campaign would be great and this trainers mayhem suddenly have some point. Maybe I did not read all the forums well but would not it be nicer for everyone to know about this facts? Many of us were confused and then we unnecessarily look like developer haters.

 

Still there are some waste-of-time looking modules.

 

BTW: L-39 Albatros? I want it so hard. Maybe because it is Czech.

[Pman]

When You put it this way.....it would be a fantastic experience. I have to admit! I haven't put this topic here because of some hate on 3rd party developers. I just wanted to write my worries down here and wait, what others think.

But having a chance, to go through a "real pilot" training is a great idea and I can't wait, how it's gonna turn out.

 

Yeah, we are very very excited about it, we have some excellent information to compile what we hope will be the most imersive and encompassing experience we will see in Flight Simulations.

 

OK, this seems to make sense. Flight school campaign would be great and this trainers mayhem suddenly have some point. Maybe I did not read all the forums well but would not it be nicer for everyone to know about this facts? Many of us were confused and then we unnecessarily look like developer haters.

 

Still there are some waste-of-time looking modules.

 

BTW: L-39 Albatros? I want it so hard. Maybe because it is Czech.

 

I obviously only speak for VEAO, I dont know what other 3rd parties have planned

 

But as for ACTS there is a thread on our forums about it :) plus we have discussed it in our Q&A videos

 

Pman

[Aginor]

pman is the best guy for advertising. He makes me really want all that! :D

[RetroBurn]

As a sandbox should be.... anything that can be imagined, can be done

[Rabbit_]

Actual Trainer list, From my Unofficial Roap:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

 

VEAO (And your ACTS - Air Combat Training School):

-Grob Tutor

-Short Tucano

-Bae Hawk

 

Albatros Team

-L-39 ZA/ZO/C

 

AvioDev:

-C-101EB (Trainer version)

-C-101CC (Light Attack version)

 

RAZBAM

-T-2 BuckEye

 

Many 3rd Partys have started with small things for a very good reason (DCS:World is a complicated system to understand, it takes time, money and effort, is very demanding and has a slow learning curve), the reality has shown us that the problems have not been overcome had 3rd parties has Kinney, MilVis, and RRG Studios (IRIS has a partial case). as I always say, "If you want to walk, you must first crawl. If you want to swim, you must first splash. If you want to fly, you have to jump first."

 

and remember as always, DCS: W not only focuses on the "modern" combat (even name DCS will "assume" a "single modern combat") or "only air envirotment", ED working on the land envirotment (your "DCS: Armored proyect"), and the Sea envirotment can be open on a far future.

 

The civil sector perfectly fits within the simulator. As you say with acrobatic equipment but VEAO Grob Tutor is itself a "species" of Cessma could be the first step in the civil sector. In the same way that the current UH-1H or Mil Mi-8, unarmed and in civilian camouflage can make civilian missions (totall Rescue Mission for example). Another example is the future project VEAO of tanker aircraft, if this is a VC-10 and TriStar, some "small" changes you can make in an entire plane of passengers / freight. Would not this be another one added to a DCS: Civil W, Only a matter of time, if the civil sector is starting in DCS: W, is not to be foreign to him, but to stay.

 

I can't agree. Civil sector just can't be allowed here. This is combat simulator. If they will start to make civil airplanes, the old magic of DCS will just vanish, because there will be many pilots, who just don't give a damn about huge manuals and will buzz around in tiny little Cessnas and Pipers with their keys in the ignition. Very disturbing image for me.

 

Nobody will give my A-10 a "hold short" because of some stupid ultralight on the runway. :smilewink:

 

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.

 

First everyone said, it's because of the complexity. Then it's because there will be some complex training campaign (and this is the first time I heard this).

I agree, that if it's done because of that training campaign and then going to EF-2000 or anything else, it's damn amazing idea.

 

I still don't understand, why so many.

 

Just suddenly everyone knows, why the trainers are developed. I found it very funny, to be honest.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Rabbit_

[Silver_Dragon]

Wags Worlds:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1480510&postcount=1

DCS stands for “Digital Combat Simulator”. DCS is a world simulation engine permitting the user to operate or direct a growing number of combat and civilian aircraft, ground vehicles and ships, from different historical eras, in different geographical locations and at different levels of fidelity. It is a true "sand box" simulation.

 

Aircraft's on mission has decided by the mission maker. If you like a only combat server, you can found them, but can be a civilian server only or mixed / Training servers in the future.

[Rabbit_]

Wags Worlds:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1480510&postcount=1

 

 

Aircraft's on mission has decided by the mission maker. If you like a only combat server, you can found them, but can be a civilian server only or mixed / Training servers in the future.

 

This sucks.

[McBlemmen]

GoodDriver, i agree completely with you, however i wouldnt say the mig 21 and f86 are training jets. (arguably the F86 could be seen as one in the DCS context)

 

 

 

When i think of these training jets being added in DCS:W i think back to before DCS:W and imagine them as standalones , like the shark and A-10 were. Think about it , imagine a standalone sim based on a training jet , how many people would buy that? I dont think alot. But somehow becouse its incorporated in World its fine...

 

 

I'm probably coming over as disrespectfull , but i'm not. If people want to spend time and money developing a training jet simulator (the whole idea behind a "training jet simulator" just seems weird, imo) its up to them. I personally wont buy it.

 

And i'm not picky at all when it comes to sims , i'll take almost anything i can get. Hell , i even learned how to fly helo's just to buy the huey.

 

I just don't understand why in a digital simulator , we need training jets.. like someone else said earlyer , we can train with the actual aircraft , why bother flying a trainer?

 

I'm not sure how a training jet "trainer campaign" would be any different or better then a training campaign in a real aircraft.

 

 

 

Again , i'm not saying people can't develop trainers if they want to. I feel like on these forums i have to say that multiple times or a posse will come after me.

 

Oh , and people who are saying that 3d party devs need to make something easy (easy as in , not complex avionics) to get used to DCS programming and/or to make money is 100% correct, however there are more things then just trainers they could be doing. Not every aircraft is an A10.

 

 

EDIT : Oh , and i dont see trainers as civilian aircraft , at all. I would LOVE some civilian aircraft like C-130s or .. well anything big really. A training jet is completely different.

Edited June 11, 2014 by McBlemmen

[Abburo]

What about a Storch in SAR mission? Can be the Storch seen as military plane? I see it more like civillian.

 

I would gladly buy a Cesna or a Piper and even more happy for an Extra300 or SU29 or 31... of course at DCS level.

[Pman]

Programming in DCS is very complicated to say the least, it requires very in depth knowledge of both the simulator and the aircraft in question.

 

Again I cant speak for Razbam or any of the other 3rd parties but as regards to VEAO I laid out our vision earlier.

 

Developing a training aircraft is by far and away less work than a full on front line combat jet. For one thing there is alot less paperwork with regards to classified material, If you guys could see the list of stuff we have to go through with the Typhoon, even without weapons the list is huge. All this needs signing off and agreeing before we can even release screenshots of somethings.

 

Aircraft like the Tucano will for us at least be available as a standalone or as part of an ACTS pack further down the road.

 

Of course I am sorry that some people do not see the value in these aircraft, however we think they have enormous value and nothing everything in DCS has to be about weapon deployment. Aircraft like the Tucano is capable of weapon deployment although that is not its main purpose in the RAF. Same for the Hawk.

 

Thats not to say we are not making combat aircraft as well, As I said in my previous post we are looking at things like Gripen as well, although it is some considerable way off. Dont forget the Warbirds Collection. They will most certainly be combat ready.

 

There is no reason to state that in the future we wont do a WW2 era trainer for a tail dragger conversion campaign.

 

Pman

[Rabbit_]

Programming in DCS is very complicated to say the least, it requires very in depth knowledge of both the simulator and the aircraft in question.

 

Again I cant speak for Razbam or any of the other 3rd parties but as regards to VEAO I laid out our vision earlier.

 

Developing a training aircraft is by far and away less work than a full on front line combat jet. For one thing there is alot less paperwork with regards to classified material, If you guys could see the list of stuff we have to go through with the Typhoon, even without weapons the list is huge. All this needs signing off and agreeing before we can even release screenshots of somethings.

 

Aircraft like the Tucano will for us at least be available as a standalone or as part of an ACTS pack further down the road.

 

Of course I am sorry that some people do not see the value in these aircraft, however we think they have enormous value and nothing everything in DCS has to be about weapon deployment. Aircraft like the Tucano is capable of weapon deployment although that is not its main purpose in the RAF. Same for the Hawk.

 

Thats not to say we are not making combat aircraft as well, As I said in my previous post we are looking at things like Gripen as well, although it is some considerable way off. Dont forget the Warbirds Collection. They will most certainly be combat ready.

 

There is no reason to state that in the future we wont do a WW2 era trainer for a tail dragger conversion campaign.

 

Pman

 

You always explain it nice and clear and I understand You. And when it fits to that training campaing later, it's gonna be great. Thanks for explanation.

[Chlebakus]

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.

 

So, there are two ways of answering the trainers question. Flight school sounds nice.

 

Replies like, "We (They) do a trainers to train our(them)selves in developing," does not sound good.

We are the ones who will pay for the modules. And do we really have to care about reason why it is not possible to have something little bit better? Either it is harder to do, documentation is needed, real pilot is needed. It is not our job. It is theirs.

 

Anyway, VEAO plans nice stuff, so we have something to look forward to. RAZBAM looks like no module release ever. Bellsimtek have two new crafts. Very very old ones (And I like them because their Mi-8 sooo much). So, maybe in SOON and When its done, we will get some proper weapon holder.

 

Digital Combat Simulator: Civil Cessna and Stuff Like Cessna For Everyone?

Oh, where would the world (sorry DCS: World) come to.

[McBlemmen]

Yeah way to go man. Calling me entitled for daring to write my opinion on a message board?!

 

I hereby welcome you to the DCS forums, where opinions are only valid if they're positive.

[Exorcet]

But You know...this is Digital COMBAT Simulator.

And you don't go into combat without training. So the inclusion of trainers is expanding the combat content to go beyond tactical fighting. Now you can simulate your development as a pilot from the moment you sign up with whatever air force.

 

 

There should be a list of wanted and not wanted modules just to prevent this from happening.

Don't get me wrong, these modules are top quality and everything looks great, but this effort could go into some real combat aircraft or helicopter. And that's what troubles me.

They could, maybe, or maybe not. Some of the devs are looking at trainers to train themselves for making more advanced DCS modules.

 

Do You really thing, there will be a campaign for these types of aircraft.....yeah...maybe....something like....."do three loops in a row"......"go under this bridge with gear down and inverted" and so on...well, not really a campaign, right?

Are campaigns necessary for DCS modules? I've never flown a campaign in DCS or Lock On ever. And yes you could have a combat campaign for anything very easily. Come up with a situation, load up some weapons, and shoot stuff. It doesn't matter if it's not historically accurate, it does not have to be.

 

And in the end, why training aircraft? We are virtual pilots, we can afford to train with actual machines right from the scratch. I just don't get what is behind this all. Maybe I'm missing something.

One reason is because they're simple. Another is because real pilots don't just jump into top of the line fighters.

 

I just don't want DCS to become FSX. I can only imagine, how the lower "modules bar" in DCS main menu will look like. Mess of icons with something not COMBAT and not DIGITAL.

So you want less aircraft? I don't think that makes much sense.

 

Sometimes I don't care, sometimes it pisses me off. I'm with Eagle Dynamics since their Lock On and it was always a ride, but in recent days, reading the forum,....I feel like in some museum trip. I still don't know, what to think about Cobra. Why not more modern version?

The Cobra isn't a trainer, so why so many complaints? Why does it have to be ultra modern anyway?

 

There already was a very emotive discussion. Yeah, I will buy it anyway, but what I really hate, is when the modules don't have the environment, enemy units and overall scenario to fit in. Every module is always a blast, great visuals, physics and it's fun to fly, but then You realize, You are done. You can't get into it on 100%, when You don't have believable campaign.

I expect that for a lot of people "believable campaign" means "that one war I heard about this aircraft being used". A real believable campaign pretty much covers the entire scope of the aircraft's service life.

 

P-51 > was operated by Russia. DCS map region invaded by Germany, there's a fairly believeable campaign situation. While we don't have ground vehicles of the WWII era we have things that are close enough. The other issue is a lack of aircraft variety for this era, but there is nothing wrong with setting up a campaign where you're simply fighting off the edge of Luftwaffe air superiority without major ground unit action.

 

F-86 > Operated by Turkey, the nation allied with NATO just south west of the USSR and its MiG-15's. If The US and USSR went right to it after WWII, you'd have a bunch of Korea over the Crimea. Some of the units in the sim start to have their earliest versions evovle at this time (C-130, B-52, etc)

 

MiG-21, much like the F-86.

 

I would like to see modules, we can use to its full potential.

There isn't much stopping you except for what you set as your own personal limits. You're demanding that we simulate Plane X in location Y and ignore that it was in G, Z, K. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't act like those other locations/wars don't matter.

 

Also, the lack of some era appropriate units will diminish if devs create those units. We shouldn't expect a full Korea situation or anything to drop from nothing. No, it will start with F-86 and MiG-15 and perhaps expand on.

 

MODERN combat jets and helicopters

The map and units in the sim support combat back to the 60's-70's at least.

 

 

In fact...there is only one module, living up to "digital combat" name. A-10C. Yeah...just one.

Everything in the sim is digital. Also, the UH-1 and Mi-8 are just as much in service as the A-10. The Ka-50 isn't exactly ancient, though it was never produced in large numbers.

[Rabbit_]

I hereby welcome you to the DCS forums, where opinions are only valid if they're positive.

 

:-D I hope it's no that bad. I also hope, nobody will take my topic and comments as hate. I love DCS and love all the work developers do. :-)

[lmp]

Not saying you should all fall in love with trainers, but here's some food for thought for those asking for a more "modern" battlefield...

 

The idea of big armies clashing and the latest fighters battling for the skies is, well, pretty "last century". It was a possibility in the 80s, it may (let's hope not) become a possibility in the future. But right now, the "XXI century war" is a COIN operation in some more or less forgotten corner of the Earth, where the lowly trainer/light CAS planes see more action than the F-22 perhaps ever will.

[Aginor]

I would fly a Cessna Skymaster as a FAC. :)

[Rabbit_]

And you don't go into combat without training. So the inclusion of trainers is expanding the combat content to go beyond tactical fighting. Now you can simulate your development as a pilot from the moment you sign up with whatever air force.

 

 

 

They could, maybe, or maybe not. Some of the devs are looking at trainers to train themselves for making more advanced DCS modules.

 

 

Are campaigns necessary for DCS modules? I've never flown a campaign in DCS or Lock On ever. And yes you could have a combat campaign for anything very easily. Come up with a situation, load up some weapons, and shoot stuff. It doesn't matter if it's not historically accurate, it does not have to be.

 

 

One reason is because they're simple. Another is because real pilots don't just jump into top of the line fighters.

 

 

So you want less aircraft? I don't think that makes much sense.

 

 

The Cobra isn't a trainer, so why so many complaints? Why does it have to be ultra modern anyway?

 

 

I expect that for a lot of people "believable campaign" means "that one war I heard about this aircraft being used". A real believable campaign pretty much covers the entire scope of the aircraft's service life.

 

P-51 > was operated by Russia. DCS map region invaded by Germany, there's a fairly believeable campaign situation. While we don't have ground vehicles of the WWII era we have things that are close enough. The other issue is a lack of aircraft variety for this era, but there is nothing wrong with setting up a campaign where you're simply fighting off the edge of Luftwaffe air superiority without major ground unit action.

 

F-86 > Operated by Turkey, the nation allied with NATO just south west of the USSR and its MiG-15's. If The US and USSR went right to it after WWII, you'd have a bunch of Korea over the Crimea. Some of the units in the sim start to have their earliest versions evovle at this time (C-130, B-52, etc)

 

MiG-21, much like the F-86.

 

 

There isn't much stopping you except for what you set as your own personal limits. You're demanding that we simulate Plane X in location Y and ignore that it was in G, Z, K. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't act like those other locations/wars don't matter.

 

Also, the lack of some era appropriate units will diminish if devs create those units. We shouldn't expect a full Korea situation or anything to drop from nothing. No, it will start with F-86 and MiG-15 and perhaps expand on.

 

 

The map and units in the sim support combat back to the 60's-70's at least.

 

 

 

Everything in the sim is digital. Also, the UH-1 and Mi-8 are just as much in service as the A-10. The Ka-50 isn't exactly ancient, though it was never produced in large numbers.

 

Campaigns are very important for me, when I fly single player and even taking it's nicely scripted missions to multiplayer.

I don't feel like messing in the editor for 3 hours to fly a mission.

 

I really would like less, more complex aircraft, than a wide array of simple aircrafts.

 

Yes...Cobra isn't trainer. That' a good info. :-) I referred to it, because it's version is very old.

 

It's absolutely not about ignoring other operation areas of any aircraft. It's about lack of these areas. You got it all wrong, but thanks for reply anyway. Everyone prefers something different. That's how it is. :-)