Hawk T1 or C-101 EB

[Valinor]

I am also in doubt about those 2. But i believe i am gonna wait for the AFM to be released either way first.

[Djent33]

SU-25T has AFM and wide array of weapons which is useful for putting combat theory into practice, also it seems like a good starting point to learn about IFR navigation and avionics without overloading the learning curve (the bits in the brain cells).

[Vivoune]

SU-25T has AFM and wide array of weapons which is useful for putting combat theory into practice, also it seems like a good starting point to learn about IFR navigation and avionics without overloading the learning curve (the bits in the brain cells).

 

Thanks but

 

Like the title says, this thread is about the upcoming Jet trainers, not all and every other DCS modules.[/b]

 

it's a thread about the upcoming Jet trainers.

 

it's a thread about the Jet trainer modules (which can engage in combat considering they are also used as light attack jets).

 

Like the title says though, this thread is about the upcoming Jet trainers, not all and every other DCS modules.

 

The subject isn't "which module for a beginner". Thanks

[Djent33]

Ahoy,

 

but I am also regularly trying to drag in the DCS world several friends of mine. A jet trainer seems like the perfect first module for these friends to train on, cut their teeth on the sim and get familiar with formation flying.

 

 

 

EDIT: Like the title says, this thread is about the upcoming Jet trainers, not all and every other DCS modules.

 

Get L-39 that will do.

[zaelu]

Get L-39 that will do.

 

Amen to that!

 

L-39 will have PFM, dual seat capability, ED model quality and same price.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Don´t count on dual seat capabilty just out of the box.

 

I guess this would come after the L-39 release, IMHO the dual seat feature would need more time to be developed and the Albatros would be here without that option at first.

 

Dreaming about being totally wrong.

[rrohde]

I just bought the Hawk, and I am going to buy the C-101 as well. Seems as if both developers are working on their EFMs, and that is what I was wanting to hear.

 

Also, in support of ED, DCS, and Third Party Devs for bigger and better things to come, I thought that's the right thing to do.

[KaspeR32]

Honestly, I probably would buy both but, I have zero faith so far in 3rd parties besides BST. I've seen enough drama happen with proposed aircraft in DCS to stay far away until things are out of BETA, and released (fully functional and bug free.)

[outlawal2]

Honestly, I probably would buy both but, I have zero faith so far in 3rd parties besides BST. I've seen enough drama happen with proposed aircraft in DCS to stay far away until things are out of BETA, and released (fully functional and bug free.)

 

Then you are missing out on a lot of time that you COULD be flying very nice planes... The HAWK while still in Beta is very mature and a pleasure to fly right now in beta... And the MIG-21 has already made it's mark as the one to beat regarding attention to detail and gorgeous visuals..

 

Personally, I see no reason to avoid the BETAs from any of these folks as they have all provided solid entries..

[Esac_mirmidon]

Leatherneck has proved themselves enough.

 

They have all my confidence.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Esac_mirmidon

[KaspeR32]

Then you are missing out on a lot of time that you COULD be flying very nice planes... The HAWK while still in Beta is very mature and a pleasure to fly right now in beta... And the MIG-21 has already made it's mark as the one to beat regarding attention to detail and gorgeous visuals..

 

Personally, I see no reason to avoid the BETAs from any of these folks as they have all provided solid entries..

 

It's just a precaution. Doesn't mean these 3rd party devs are lacking in anyway, it's a lesson I've learned from STEAM early access as well. I'll wait for reviews/recommendations from now on.

 

I absolutely do hope to have EVERY plane at some point in my collection. :thumbup:

[Djent33]

There is no reason why you shouldn’t take some training lessons.

[DimitryNZ]

I would personally go for the C-101 for two reasons. Firstly, you get two quite different aircraft for nearly the same price as the T1A Hawk. You get the EB variant which, when multi-seat capability comes out, can be an excellent acrobatic/formation flying advanced trainer. You also get the light-attack/weapons CC variant with a similar core system set out and new stuff to learn and experiment around with.

 

Another reason why the C-101 is the better choice IMHO is that it has a total of 6 under-wing hard point (1 center with 3 on each wing) pylons as opposed to the T1A's which only has 4 (1 center with 2 under-wing on each wing). This means that you could train and attack with 2 more weapons at once in the C-101 CC. Also the T1A can only use rocket pods, practice/armed bombs and AIM9L Air-to-air missiles. The C-101CC can use all of that (note that the C-101 uses a more recent AIM9 variant, the AIM9M of which is slightly more powerful) and the Sea Eagle Anti-Sea missile which will help increase both training and actual SP and MP mission-role capabilities rather than it being a rather limited light-attack aircraft.

 

Admittedly, the Hawk T1A (due to its wing design) has a higher max speed but the C-101 has a greater flight range (which means that you do not need to fly at max 100% fuel if you care about speed).

 

Overall, I think these training aircraft (C-101, T1A Hawk and soon to come L39) are exciting additions to DCS World as they can help newcomers get into standard flying protocol (especially with multi-seat capability hopefully coming in DCS World 2) especially if playing with other players (i.e. Having actual pilot and trainee training lessons with multi-seat MP).

[rrohde]

I have both the Hawk and the C-101, and have both shelved until EFM is available. Ground handling and flight models are just too simplistic out-of-the-box, especially after flying the F-15 and Su-27 with AFM all the time. The contrast is just too stark.

 

Have to admit though, that I like the initial quality and "feel" of the C-101 a lot better than the Hawk, for some reason.

Edited February 26, 2015 by rrohde

[jcbak]

I have both the Hawk and the C-101, and have both shelved until EFM is available. Ground handling and flight models are just too simplistic out-of-the-box, especially after flying the F-15 and Su-27 with AFM all the time. The contrast is just too stark.

 

Have to admit though, that I like the initial quality and "feel" of the C-101 a lot better than the Hawk, for some reason.

I agree completely. I think the C101 is much farther along regarding cockpit texture. Both are too simplistic at this point.

[Pizzicato]

I agree completely. I think the C101 is much farther along regarding cockpit texture. Both are too simplistic at this point.

 

I feel similarly. The C-101 is a really lovely aircraft - inside and out. The Hawk has a beautiful external model, but (completely subjectively) the implementation of its cockpit is ugly enough that I just don't want to fly it. It's the first time I've been genuinely disappointed by a DCS aircraft.

 

In regard to KaspeR32's observations about third party aircraft, I think Belsimtek and Leatherneck are hitting it out of the park. AvioDev's first offering is promising, but VEAO really need to up their game. I'm really rooting for VEAO as I like their attitude, openness and list of upcoming aircraft, but their first product has left me feeling seriously underwhelmed. I'll be much more cautious when considering whether or not to purchase their next module.

 

Again, this is just my own personal opinion. Other people clearly have different perspectives, so your mileage may vary.

[audax]

The Hawk will get a major update to the cockpit, but until then it doesn't look very nice. My current "trainer" is the MiG-15bis :D