Digital Training Simulator

[Chlebakus]

Make civil DCS. And for them who like it combined something like this:

Edited June 11, 2014 by Chlebakus

[McBlemmen]

Make civil DCS. And for them who like it combined something like this:

<a href='http://postimg.org/image/8xlpbizpp/' target='_blank'><img src='http://s14.postimg.org/8xlpbizpp/dcs_combined_arms.jpg' border='0' alt="dcs combined arms" /></a>

 

Hahaha thats brilliant

[Rabbit_]

Make civil DCS. And for them who like it combined something like this:

 

:-D

[cichlidfan]

At least, L-39 is made in my country. :thumbup: But now You really scared the sh** out of me. So so many little jets.

 

I would advise getting used to it. You cannot influence what gets made so just enjoy the ones that you like.

[skouras]

I totally disagree. I would like to see any aircraft in DCS as long as it's simulated properly. That includes even Cessna 172.

+1

[Rabbit_]

Anyway, guys, Thank You very much for keeping this discussion calm and intelligent.

 

Especially, I want to thank to Pman from VEAO for sharing some much appreciated info, even we are not on official VEAO forum.

 

:thumbup:

[winz]

Yeah way to go man. Calling me entitled for daring to write my opinion on a message board?! So do you usually resort ad-hominem attacks when disagreeing with someone? Also way to miss the point. There are 4 trainers in development. 4!! I did not write my message out of spite, or hate, or entitlement, whatever you may think, I commend the developers on taking the risks but my whole point was that its a huge risk.

I'm sorry if it came out aggresive. It wasn't aimed directly at you, but at the kind of attitude that is present in topics like these. And it's the attitude that I'm really tired of. I'm tired of topics that could be sumarized by "Why are devs doing X, I 'm not interested in X, it's old/out of place..I want them to do Y".

And the base of these topics is simple "why dev isn't caring to my preference", and that is entitlement in my eyes. These topics go on for a few days, without bringing anything new to table, after which they end up in Chit-chat where they are burried and forgotten. What's is even worse in my eyes is that these topics are among the first topics created after every new module is announcement.

 

I just don't understant why it is so difficult to realize that dev chose X, because he is confident of pulling off X in reasonable time, with his current budget, with his current understanding of the DCS platform and with his access to information about X (in the form of documents and SME), and he thinks that X will sell. And no amount of "I don't like X" will change that.

And imho every dev would love to be the one to bring a DCS level simulator of an technologicaly advanced platform...But trying to create that, as a first module, might be bigger risk than creating even 5th trainer aircraft.

[Rabbit_]

I'm sorry if it came out aggresive. It wasn't aimed directly at you, but at the kind of attitude that is present in topics like these. And it's the attitude that I'm really tired of. I'm tired of topics that could be sumarized by "Why are devs doing X, I 'm not interested in X, it's old/out of place..I want them to do Y".

And the base of these topics is simple "why dev isn't caring to my preference", and that is entitlement in my eyes. These topics go on for a few days, without bringing anything new to table, after which they end up in Chit-chat where they are burried and forgotten. What's is even worse in my eyes is that these topics are among the first topics created after every new module is announcement.

 

I just don't understant why it is so difficult to realize that dev chose X, because he is confident of pulling off X in reasonable time, with his current budget, with his current understanding of the DCS platform and with his access to information about X (in the form of documents and SME), and he thinks that X will sell. And no amount of "I don't like X" will change that.

And imho every dev would love to be the one to bring a DCS level simulator of an technologicaly advanced platform...But trying to create that, as a first module, might be bigger risk than creating even 5th trainer aircraft.

 

I understand, You have that feeling from this topic, but it wasn't the point. I started this, because I was confused, why is this and why is that. I'm not saying "don't buy these modules". It just looked depressive to me, when I saw third little jet and I'm glad we got a word from someone like VEAO. That was my goal here. To find out, what people think. I didn't want same flaming about little things and forcing my own personal priorities to any of You.

[Chlebakus]

I'm sorry if it came out aggresive. It wasn't aimed directly at you, but at the kind of attitude that is present in topics like these. And it's the attitude that I'm really tired of. I'm tired of topics that could be sumarized by "Why are devs doing X, I 'm not interested in X, it's old/out of place..I want them to do Y".

And the base of these topics is simple "why dev isn't caring to my preference", and that is entitlement in my eyes. These topics go on for a few days, without bringing anything new to table, after which they end up in Chit-chat where they are burried and forgotten. What's is even worse in my eyes is that these topics are among the first topics created after every new module is announcement.

 

I just don't understant why it is so difficult to realize that dev chose X, because he is confident of pulling off X in reasonable time, with his current budget, with his current understanding of the DCS platform and with his access to information about X (in the form of documents and SME), and he thinks that X will sell. And no amount of "I don't like X" will change that.

And imho every dev would love to be the one to bring a DCS level simulator of an technologicaly advanced platform...But trying to create that, as a first module, might be bigger risk than creating even 5th trainer aircraft.

 

We are not so stupid to think, we can choose what to develop, neither we think this talking about nothing will solute anything. The point was there are many new modules to come, but trainers, old Cobra, old Sabre...? It just dont fit on this battlefield. Trainers were explained. Others did not. 4-5 incoming modules, but are you that happy about them in global?

 

Maybe you are missing point of this thread. There we have the chance to say our: "We are not glad." Its not: "We want to change it and we want this and this."

 

All specific forums are full of people who talk like: "Love it and take my money, looks great, gimme that."

Let us tell the DCS community and devs that not everyone is happy with new modules. Then ask for some reasoning. It is not because it is one module, or two. As I mentioned, there are far more of them to say: "No, this is not attractive."

[WildBillKelsoe]

Its really hard for ED to release quality aircraft quickly, but I'm sure I'd love an aircraft or three (yes three) trainers. I welcome them only if they have multiplayer slots for the same craft. Think of it as a way to learn the different flying techniques, to encourage maybe your son, your uncle, your wife, your girlfriend to hop in the cockpit and see your flying skills, give you feedback, and also share good times.

 

 

I bought some counterparts for FSX (for example the T-2 Buckeye by Razbam). Then it hit me! If we had these in DCS, the multiplayer aspect would be so cool. That is my thinking.

[cichlidfan]

I bought some counterparts for FSX (for example the T-2 Buckeye by Razbam). Then it hit me! If we had these in DCS, the multiplayer aspect would be so cool. That is my thinking.

 

Except DCS does not have that particular MP feature.

[Aginor]

Not yet at least.

[Rabbit_]

Its really hard for ED to release quality aircraft quickly, but I'm sure I'd love an aircraft or three (yes three) trainers. I welcome them only if they have multiplayer slots for the same craft. Think of it as a way to learn the different flying techniques, to encourage maybe your son, your uncle, your wife, your girlfriend to hop in the cockpit and see your flying skills, give you feedback, and also share good times.

 

 

I bought some counterparts for FSX (for example the T-2 Buckeye by Razbam). Then it hit me! If we had these in DCS, the multiplayer aspect would be so cool. That is my thinking.

 

Yes...You are right. It has potential for a lot of people. I know this kind of arguing is like having a chat about what is better...WW2 sim or modern sim.

 

I prefer to wait a little longer and get a hardcore awesome module. But we are getting to "I want" area and that's not a constructive. :-)

 

On the other hand, it's nice to see, how many people will welcome these trainers with open arms. :-)

[msalama]

like the Tucano is capable of weapon deployment

 

Exactly. Many of these birds can be used as COIN aircraft as well, and that's as DCS as it gets :thumbup:

 

But who and what exactly are these bozos who think developing civvie AC for DCS somehow diminishes its value? The more the merrier, and I'm sure the (virtually) flying public agrees. Also, who are you to say that running a civvie server "sucks"? You don't have to participate, so why the hell are you whingeing?

 

PS. A hint for all ye naysayers: see a Cessna puttering about a no-fly zone, just shoot the !#&%" down. That'll teach them :D

[Pizzicato]

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

 

This is the most exciting post I've read in ages.

 

I really hope you guys can pull this off, Pman.

[Pman]

Exactly. Many of these birds can be used as COIN aircraft as well, and that's as DCS as it gets :thumbup:

 

But who and what exactly are these bozos who think developing civvie AC for DCS somehow diminishes its value? The more the merrier, and I'm sure the (virtually) flying public agrees. Also, who are you to say that running a civvie server "sucks"? You don't have to participate, so why the hell are you whingeing?

 

PS. A hint for all ye naysayers: see a Cessna puttering about a no-fly zone, just shoot the !#&%" down. That'll teach them :D

 

 

Haha who am I to argue considering I run the Virtual Aerobatics non combat server lol

 

 

 

 

This is the most exciting post I've read in ages.

 

I really hope you guys can pull this off, Pman.

 

Glad that you think so!

 

 

 

Anyway, guys, Thank You very much for keeping this discussion calm and intelligent.

 

Especially, I want to thank to Pman from VEAO for sharing some much appreciated info, even we are not on official VEAO forum.

 

:thumbup:

 

Your welcome

 

 

End of the day we obviously need to cater to demand and one thing we know well is that demand is varied and vast.

 

Hopefully we will be able to offer a product to suit any potential customer for DCS :)

 

Pman

[outlawal2]

Yes...You are right. It has potential for a lot of people. I know this kind of arguing is like having a chat about what is better...WW2 sim or modern sim.

 

I prefer to wait a little longer and get a hardcore awesome module. But we are getting to "I want" area and that's not a constructive. :-)

 

On the other hand, it's nice to see, how many people will welcome these trainers with open arms. :-)

 

I am not certain I understand this statement... Most (if not all ) of the devs are working on more advanced modules and they WILL be released at a later date... By releasing a trainer (or some other less advanced plane or helicopter) they obtain the knowledge to complete the more advanced plane later..

 

Why would you want to wait God knows how long for a plane when a less advanced one becomes available? Also, 2 things to consider is:

 

1) If you don't like the trainer don't buy it (But don't limit the learning/knowledge advantage the devs get from development of it)

 

2) By not providing the trainer, the devs will go MUCH longer with no revenue stream to pay for the development of the more advanced module.. I believe WAGS said about $120,000 for a WW2 module, so no avionics, systems etc. How much do you think a modern plane/helicopter with all the systems and bells and whistles will cost?

 

Unfortunately, folks need to look at these things from the basis of running a business... I think for many of these devs if you went with the "I am going to program a (fill in the blank here, F-22, F-35, PAK 50, Typhoon, whatever) as my first plane" I think what you would get is a bankrupt company and one less dev to provide modules for DCS...

 

And finally, half the threads on this forum whine about how long it takes to get finished modules, so here we have devs trying to provide top quality modules quickly... And folks don't like that either...

 

At the end of the day, everyone has their own opinions, and the devs have theirs as well, but THEIR opinions are based on harsh business realities not just a passion for a particular plane, genre etc..

Edited June 11, 2014 by outlawal2

[winz]

We are not so stupid to think, we can choose what to develop, neither we think this talking about nothing will solute anything. The point was there are many new modules to come, but trainers, old Cobra, old Sabre...? It just dont fit on this battlefield. Trainers were explained. Others did not. 4-5 incoming modules, but are you that happy about them in global?

 

Maybe you are missing point of this thread. There we have the chance to say our: "We are not glad." Its not: "We want to change it and we want this and this."

 

All specific forums are full of people who talk like: "Love it and take my money, looks great, gimme that."

Let us tell the DCS community and devs that not everyone is happy with new modules. Then ask for some reasoning. It is not because it is one module, or two. As I mentioned, there are far more of them to say: "No, this is not attractive."

"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.

Edited June 11, 2014 by winz

[cichlidfan]

At the end of the day, everyone has their own opinions, and the devs have theirs as well, but THEIR opinions are based on harsh business realities not just a passion for a particular plane, genre etc..

 

The C-101, that is operated by only four tiny Air Forces, is being developed based on 'harsh business realities' as opposed to passion for the aircraft?

[outlawal2]

The C-101, that is operated by only four tiny Air Forces, is being developed based on 'harsh business realities' as opposed to passion for the aircraft?

 

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.

Edited June 11, 2014 by outlawal2

[Silver_Dragon]

Spain Air Force a Tiny Air Force? 150+ combat 4+ Gen Fighters dismiss them.

[cichlidfan]

Spain Air Force a Tiny Air Force? 150+ combat 4+ Gen Fighters dismiss them.

 

Yes.

[Rabbit_]

I am not certain I understand this statement... Most (if not all ) of the devs are working on more advanced modules and they WILL be released at a later date... By releasing a trainer (or some other less advanced plane or helicopter) they obtain the knowledge to complete the more advanced plane later..

 

Why would you want to wait God knows how long for a plane when a less advanced one becomes available? Also, 2 things to consider is:

 

1) If you don't like the trainer don't buy it (But don't limit the learning/knowledge advantage the devs get from development of it)

 

2) By not providing the trainer, the devs will go MUCH longer with no revenue stream to pay for the development of the more advanced module.. I believe WAGS said about $120,000 for a WW2 module, so no avionics, systems etc. How much do you think a modern plane/helicopter with all the systems and bells and whistles will cost?

 

Unfortunately, folks need to look at these things from the basis of running a business... I think for many of these devs if you went with the "I am going to program a (fill in the blank here, F-22, F-35, PAK 50, Typhoon, whatever) as my first plane" I think what you would get is a bankrupt company and one less dev to provide modules for DCS...

 

And finally, half the threads on this forum whine about how long it takes to get finished modules, so here we have devs trying to provide top quality modules quickly... And folks don't like that either...

 

At the end of the day, everyone has their own opinions, and the devs have theirs as well, but THEIR opinions are based on harsh business realities not just a passion for a particular plane, genre etc..

 

First of all, nobody is whining here.

Second...I´m not limiting anything and not forcing anyone to not buying it. This whole topic is about reasons behind all different trainers and so on.

 

I think it´s not that difficult to understand.

 

Sure, You have many good points and I agree with You.

[outlawal2]

First of all, nobody is whining here.

Second...I´m not limiting anything and not forcing anyone to not buying it. This whole topic is about reasons behind all different trainers and so on.

 

I think it´s not that difficult to understand.

 

Sure, You have many good points and I agree with You.

 

Hey I was not saying you were whining and I can understand your questions and point of view... Just trying to point out why things are the way they are.. Absolutely ZERO animosity here!

 

Have a good one..

:thumbup:

[Rabbit_]

Hey I was not saying you were whining and I can understand your questions and point of view... Just trying to point out why things are the way they are.. Absolutely ZERO animosity here!

 

Have a good one..

:thumbup:

 

OK...then sorry for that, mate. :-)