PRE-PURCHASE DCS: L-39 ALBATROS Discussion Thread

[Dun_Aenghus]

This looks great, I'll probably pick it up at some stage during one of the sales. But as a guy who plays a lot of single player, I'd also like to know if it comes with a campaign. Maybe something simple where you do some rocket/bomb attacks on insurgents.

[kontiuka]

This looks great, I'll probably pick it up at some stage during one of the sales. But as a guy who plays a lot of single player, I'd also like to know if it comes with a campaign. Maybe something simple where you do some rocket/bomb attacks on insurgents.

Wags stated that there will be a campaign but the format will be undecided.

[59th_Reaper]

Just a question: The front cockpit curtain will work? Because it would be very good for the IFR trainings.

[Woogey]

Trainer Wars

 

I can already envision the competition servers in action. Trainers only battle Royal. L-39 vs, Hawk, vs C-101, vs T-2C. Let the fun begin!

[thaisocom]

Can't wait to fly this beauty!

 

Edited July 28, 2015 by thaisocom

[Tirak]

I can already envision the competition servers in action. Trainers only battle Royal. L-39 vs, Hawk, vs C-101, vs T-2C. Let the fun begin!

 

T-2C is a loooong way off. RAZBAM made the right decision in putting it on the back burner to focus on an actually capable combat aircraft.

[Slipp]

T-2C is a loooong way off. RAZBAM made the right decision in putting it on the back burner to focus on an actually capable combat aircraft.

 

Yeah, I hope they put it on a back burner forever.

We need combat planes, we have more than enough trainers for now.

[Python]

Yeah, I hope they put it on a back burner forever.

We need combat planes, we have more than enough trainers for now.

 

 

I hope they don't because I'm a fan of the Buckeye. I love DCS: Hawk, I'll be buying the L-39, I just don't get this hatred for trainers. It's fine if not everybody wants to buy them, but some of us just want to experience aircraft we like as close to the real things as possible, and DCS is our best hope for that. There are plenty of DCS modules that allow us to blow stuff up, and there will be plenty more to come, a few trainers won't get in the way of that.

 

P.S, the Hawk is better armed than several of the pure fighters that people rave about in DCS, so while it may be primarily a trainer in RAF service, it has a sting.

[Tirak]

I hope they don't because I'm a fan of the Buckeye. I love DCS: Hawk, I'll be buying the L-39, I just don't get this hatred for trainers. It's fine if not everybody wants to buy them, but some of us just want to experience aircraft we like as close to the real things as possible, and DCS is our best hope for that. There are plenty of DCS modules that allow us to blow stuff up, and there will be plenty more to come, a few trainers won't get in the way of that.

 

P.S, the Hawk is better armed than several of the pure fighters that people rave about in DCS, so while it may be primarily a trainer in RAF service, it has a sting.

 

The trainers were only meant to acclimate their respective dev teams to the DCS engine. The joke of course being, that both trainers still lack a full flight model whereas LN released its MiG-21Bis and Belsimtek released the F-86F and MiG-15Bis. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the trainer concept of starting out.

 

If things continue at the pace they seem to be, it's likely Polychop, a fan mod project that turned into a 3rd party, is going to release its first full module before the trainers get a full flight model. Half the backlash against the trainers can be pointed to the fact that they are a tremendous waste of time when aircraft that could fit into more scenarios could have been developed.

[Python]

The trainers were only meant to acclimate their respective dev teams to the DCS engine. The joke of course being, that both trainers still lack a full flight model whereas LN released its MiG-21Bis and Belsimtek released the F-86F and MiG-15Bis. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the trainer concept of starting out.

 

If things continue at the pace they seem to be, it's likely Polychop, a fan mod project that turned into a 3rd party, is going to release its first full module before the trainers get a full flight model. Half the backlash against the trainers can be pointed to the fact that they are a tremendous waste of time when aircraft that could fit into more scenarios could have been developed.

 

That isn't entirely true, the trainers were chosen because the developers wished to make those aircraft. The idea that they are somehow getting in the way of making proper fighter/attack aircraft doesn't hold up. Again, I see why not everybody is interested in trainer aircraft (I have zero interest in the C-101) but many of us are. Just don't buy them if you don't want them, complaining helps nobody, we can't all have what we want all the time. I love the Hawk myself although I am eagerly awaiting the EFM. The Mig 21 was in development for a long old time. I'd like an F-16 as much as anybody, but at the same time I'd love a Tucano as it is something I see regularly.

[NineLine]

Back on topic guys...

[Belamor]

Is it possible combine DCS: World purchased via Steam with this digital content from eagle site? Will be L-39C available via Steam?

[Tirak]

Is it possible combine DCS: World purchased via Steam with this digital content from eagle site? Will be L-39C available via Steam?

 

The L-39 will eventually be available on Steam. In the past, it's been about a 2-4 week delay between a module coming out, and the Steam version becoming available.

 

Modules purchased on Steam can be transferred over to the DCS standalone launcher, however, modules purchased through the ED store WILL NOT transfer over to the Steam version of DCS.

 

Most people I know have switched to the ED Launcher, as it receives updates to modules quicker, and it's one less process running in the background.

 

Please note, that you can still play the game against people using the Steam version if you use the ED Launcher, just that purchases are not transferred from ED to Steam.

 

Just to make sure this is perfectly clear. Everybody plays the same DCS world. However, if I buy DCS: MiG-21Bis on steam, I can take my steam key and plug it into the DCS Standalone Launcher and it will unlock the module for me. However if I bought DCS: MiG-21Bis through the ED store, I cannot use the key I received from the ED store to unlock it as a Steam Purchase.

[Belamor]

The L-39 will eventually be available on Steam. In the past, it's been about a 2-4 week delay between a module coming out, and the Steam version becoming available.

 

Modules purchased on Steam can be transferred over to the DCS standalone launcher, however, modules purchased through the ED store WILL NOT transfer over to the Steam version of DCS.

 

Most people I know have switched to the ED Launcher, as it receives updates to modules quicker, and it's one less process running in the background.

 

Please note, that you can still play the game against people using the Steam version if you use the ED Launcher, just that purchases are not transferred from ED to Steam.

 

Just to make sure this is perfectly clear. Everybody plays the same DCS world. However, if I buy DCS: MiG-21Bis on steam, I can take my steam key and plug it into the DCS Standalone Launcher and it will unlock the module for me. However if I bought DCS: MiG-21Bis through the ED store, I cannot use the key I received from the ED store to unlock it as a Steam Purchase.

 

Thank you. Now its clear.

[Hook47]

I am looking forward to the L:39 because it will be in a more complete state than the other two trainers sitting in my hangar, collecting dust :/

[giei]

I am looking forward to the L:39 because it will be in a more complete state than the other two trainers sitting in my hangar, collecting dust :/

 

Me too :(

[boquinauer]

Question about the L-39C. I've seen in te video posted by Wags that there is a IFR hood modeled in the front canopy. Is it going to be implemented? It would be a great tool for

IFR training.

[Nate--IRL--]

Question about the L-39C. I've seen in te video posted by Wags that there is a IFR hood modeled in the front canopy. Is it going to be implemented? It would be a great tool for

IFR training.

 

The implementation still needs work, it's next to impossible to get the marker off your screen afterwards.

 

Nate

[Pizzicato]

I am looking forward to the L:39 because it will be in a more complete state than the other two trainers sitting in my hangar, collecting dust :/

 

Same. The Hawk was a real disappointment for me. The Aviojet is pretty cool, but still very unfinished.

 

The L-39, on the other hand, looks like the real deal. Really looking forward to it.

[Proof]

Same. The Hawk was a real disappointment for me. The Aviojet is pretty cool, but still very unfinished.

 

The L-39, on the other hand, looks like the real deal. Really looking forward to it.

 

I agree, although I am looking forward to seeing how the C101 develops.

[McBlemmen]

Are the L-39's navigation avionics similar to that of the SU25 where you need a beacon to home in on for navigation? If so how is that gonna work? FC3 aircraft are dumbed down and the avionics just point towards your waypoint but if i recall correctly IRL you would need an actual beacon on the ground , so will we need to put it in with the ME? Or does it home in on pre-set beacons like VOR's and such?

[Capt_Haddock]

Are the L-39's navigation avionics similar to that of the SU25 where you need a beacon to home in on for navigation? If so how is that gonna work? FC3 aircraft are dumbed down and the avionics just point towards your waypoint but if i recall correctly IRL you would need an actual beacon on the ground , so will we need to put it in with the ME? Or does it home in on pre-set beacons like VOR's and such?

 

Well, I imagine it will work just like the MiG-21, where there are no waypoints, just traditional navigation via RSBN (Russian VOR + DME) and ARC (Russian NDB stations).

[Python]

Same. The Hawk was a real disappointment for me. The Aviojet is pretty cool, but still very unfinished.

 

 

Our of interest, what do you think is better about the C-101 than the Hawk? I have very little interest in that aircraft but I really like the Hawk (lack of efm and rear cockpit view in the beta aside) I'm looking forward to the L-39 also.

[McBlemmen]

Well, I imagine it will work just like the MiG-21, where there are no waypoints, just traditional navigation via RSBN (Russian VOR + DME) and ARC (Russian NDB stations).

 

That makes sense , don't really know much about the 21's navigation systems... but how will that work in NTTR then?

 

Anyway i guess i'll find out when the module releases

[NineLine]

Our of interest, what do you think is better about the C-101 than the Hawk? I have very little interest in that aircraft but I really like the Hawk (lack of efm and rear cockpit view in the beta aside) I'm looking forward to the L-39 also.

 

Guys, this thread is for the discussion of ED's L-39 module, no other modules and such here please.