Whats with all the trainner modules.

[NineLine]

Trainers are an easy cash grab for people who want to take money from the "i buy every dcs module to support DCS" sheeple. One day people will get sick of it and they will fade away.

 

That's your opinion, not held by everyone. And if you are going to insult people that have interests other than you, you should probably make sure you spell your insult correctly...

 

If you don't like them, don't buy them, but don't try and speak for anyone other than yourself, and next time, try doing it in a mature and respectful manner.

[BlackLion213]

Again with the F-16....

 

Believe it or not, some us are rather ambivalent towards it.

 

Knowing that ED is developing a F/A-18C Hornet module (which I will definitely buy), I would buy the L-39 before the F-16. I like the variety of having several different airframes and ranges of performance. Flying a slow, relatively underpowered jet has it's own set of challenges and I have really enjoyed flying the L-39. It's fine if others don't. ;)

 

I think it would be great if ED or a 3rd Party developed an F-16, partly so there are fewer of these posts (and because it's a well-rounded fighter, etc, etc).

 

But I'm happy there are WWII fighters, early jets, trainers, and potent multi-role fighters (on the way at least).

 

My 2 cents,

 

Nick

[313_Nevo]

guys if you think nobody wants to buy trainers but every one wants to throw money on for example F-16 then go create a company hire some devs and create new module for DCS. you will become rich (if your thoughts are correct) :)

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Actually, isn't a Viper in the cards with ED, already?

[tintifaxl]

IMHO training aircraft modules are a questionable use of developer resources.

 

I guess they are used to train new devs how to develop dcs modules, too :)

[BlackLion213]

Actually, isn't a Viper in the cards with ED, already?

 

Nothing official, though it has been mentioned a few times in the past.

 

Even if it is, who knows how many projects are in front of it.

 

-Nick

[Flycat]

Sims seem to turn out more and more for "Collectors" than actual "Players"

I like this words, jkkkk

Put guys on the train then prepare to receive money from them. They will pay for it just like collect trading card game.

:lol:

Edited October 25, 2015 by Flycat

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Someone hates content.

[Sryan]

yeah word is the viper is in development. However some of the tech that should go on it first needs to be made, for the hornet. So not soon most likely :(

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1996107&postcount=52

 

there's also this, a list of statements from ED on what models need to be worked on, and what they are doing inhouse and what they licensed to 3rd parties, however, this might as well just be an AI model.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=104115

 

anyway I'm not trying to derail this thread into another "I want an F16" so I'll stop here :D

Edited October 25, 2015 by Sryan

[kontiuka]

Someone hates content.

lol

[Scarecrow]

I personally haven't bought any of the trainer modules also. They have a limited use for me in the limited time i have to play. I'm actually struggling to keep up with releases that do interest me.

I wouldn't bother with a guesstimated uberfighter either. That poor guy who tried to pitch DCS F35:megalol:

 

That's the beauty ED's system, if you don't want it don't buy it.

[MegOhm_SD]

Sheeple? Seriously in the world all of the modules have their place and purpose. Many pilots of different ilks. Narrow focus misses much.

[Apples]

I have to agree, Trainers are most likely the easiest to create right now.. A to G Radar is probably a huge part of it all.. Until a good functioning A to G radar we probably wont see much aircraft that have one for some time yet..

Edited October 29, 2015 by Apples

[outlawal2]

I penned the following quite a while back in answer to the last guy that was complaining about trainers.. Looking back the same points are just as valid now as they were when I posted it before..

 

Go figure:music_whistling:

 

So jumping into a $30 million airplane and cratering it into the ground repeatedly sounds much more realistic?

 

For folks that are interested in realism, trainers make perfect sense so you can learn how to fly just like they do in real life... Once mastered, then you graduate to more sophisticated planes and then MAYBE you might have a chance of not crashing your brains out repeatedly..

 

I for one am a huge fan of the trainer philosophy and am looking forward to real flight training by VEAO systems.. (And maybe some other devs will follow suit)

 

As far as which plane to buy..? I am buying them all once available in AFM... They will all fly differently and have their own character..

 

Kinda like asking what girl to take home.. Blonde, Brunette or Redhead..

They all look good to me... (But since I am married, all I can do is LOOK)

 

LOL

[Svend_Dellepude]

+1 here.

 

Trainers with AFM or above is a good way to train BFM if you want to get rid of those nasty habits you developed while pulling G's in your SFM fighter vs poor AI or online.

[tob.s]

The thing i dont get is the " we need to start with something easy" - the mig21 and gazelle clearly showed that its possible to add new and complex systems to dcs - if im right the gazelle devs started as modders so theyre no profesionals / have ( had ) their daytime jobs and still developed the gazelle quite fast. Also the a10c already features most of the systems u could imagine for more than 10 years, its all in dcs and i guess one could adapt those systems quite easily to another plane as dcs`s engine should do most of the work.

 

also there are already mods that add weapons to different planes ( some more some less realistic )left out by the devs, so if modders can do so it shouldnt be a problem for any dev.

 

Im quite disappointed that even with the eurofighter and f14 we will get the pure fighter versions ( well ok leatherneck could do a paper-plane and it would still kick ass ). Why is air to ground totally abandoned ? Im not asking for extreme firepower, but a hawk with brimstones or mavericks on the f5 would make them much more intersting to me.

I doubt the f5s maverick systems are classified while the a10s arent.

 

 

The "people will buy any module just because its something new" effect clearly is there, and i cant imagine how the trainers could be a financial succes without it as theres limited people liking hardcore flightsims and only a fraction of those would realy buy more than one trainer ( maybee on sale ) if there was any other module to buy. Well, the more modules we get, the higher the pressure to offer something other modules dont have. My hopess are with Leatherneck ( poor guys as everyone is expecting another miracle from them ) and if i could wish for one plane, it was the f117.

Edited August 9, 2016 by tob.s

[COMThing]

Regarding the weapons, they are usually left out because they were not in use with the version modelled. E.g The F-5E we have now was not AGM-65 capable in real life. Other times it is due to more complex real-life licensing/military contract issues which I'm pretty sure are why the AGM-65E was removed from the game.

 

Also, if you have ever used the copy/paste function in a text file, you have the skills to add "missing" weapons to a plane. It is not the same when integrating the required systems.

 

The EF-2000 and F-14 have also had confirmation that A/G weapons will be available. Self-designation and guidance for laser-guided weapons is yet to be confirmed. Also, with the Mirage 2000 nearly out of beta and the F/A-18C nearing early access (probs early/mid next year), you can't actually complain about A/G combat being abandoned.

[tob.s]

im not asking to strap on weapons on plane versions that didnt carry em, but for the versions of the planes that are more versalite / mutirole versions, so hawk 2000 instead of t1a for example.

[firmek]

Let's play a devils advocate for a moment. What are the reasons someone should be getting a trainer? Especially that at the moment apart of one exception they're at full price level for other modules. How would you convince someone to pay 60$ for a trainer instead of any other module? So far I've failed to find any arguments to convince myself.

 

The main reason is not really that they’re not really combat worthy. In such case what would be the reasons to get the Mig-21 or F-5E as they don't stand much of a chance on modern battlefield. Same for Mi-8 or Huey.

What matters is the content that the modules bring.

In reality the goal of a trainers is to train new pilots in safe and cost efficient environment. Well, this is exactly what by their nature the flight simulators do but with an advantage of being able to directly jump on board of the target platform. With a trainers to some extend we could say that we have a flight simulator inside of the flight simulator. I really not able to see the point behind the trainers in simulator.

I know that there are people that are not only into blowing the stuff on day one of jumping into new airplane. But then the any of the modules can be used for going more into aviation. I've spend a lot of hours just practicing landings and approach patterns in A-10, flying IFR and navigation with Mig-21, enjoying pure flight aspects of chopper with Mi-8. Overall it seems that with standard modules I can do what the trainers does plus much more, while not in the opposite case - the trainers don't seem to offer anything that the other modules can't do.

 

The argument about developing a trainer as learning step or prior build a module in DCS is strategically bad decision. First why to invest time and resources in creating something for what the customer base almost doesn’t exists. We’re talking about a very small niche in a niche that the flight sims are. Much more important is however that with any software, the development is just a part of the total cost of ownership. Those modules have to be maintained which in long time perspective can consume potentially more resources than just developing them. In result once a team is acknowledge to be ready to undertake a full blown module the time for it will be reduced by the need to support the trainer. Software is like with a dog – buying a puppy is relatively cheap, than you have to take care about it and feed it.

[rrohde]

For me, personally, DCS trainers (with either PFM/AFM/EFM) are well worth it if they come with adequate training missions that actually teach the basics of flying, and - especially useful - the basics of navigation using the various instruments for both the western and eastern systems on board, respectively. That's real value for me.

[Silver_Dragon]

The argument about developing a trainer as learning step or prior build a module in DCS is strategically bad decision.

 

You need steep before run. If you not know the learning process to build a high fidelity aircraft on DCS: World, your project can be direct road to doom, some examples, Coretex F/A-18E, Kinney F-35, IRIS F-22 and F-15E, Mil-Sim-Projects F-104 and others previous before them.

 

The complexity of the DCS: W engine require you and your team match some experience on the new engine, module creation, learn building module creation, strong computer language base and others requirements before move to more advanced projects.

 

ED build the L-39 how test-bed to the multi-crew technology and Aviodev C-101EB, VEAO Hawk T.1 or the cancelled RAZBAM T-2 Buckeye has open a new broad of future products with solid foundations (Aviodev has a C-101CC Light attack and a Mirage F-1 on progress, RAZBAM build the M-2000C and incoming a AV-8B Night Attack, A-7 and other incoming projects, and VEAO work on a Eurofighter and other WW2 stuff.

[firmek]

For me, personally, DCS trainers (with either PFM/AFM/EFM) are well worth it if they come with adequate training missions that actually teach the basics of flying, and - especially useful - the basics of navigation using the various instruments for both the western and eastern systems on board, respectively. That's real value for me.

Complete, in depth and detailed training campaign could be a good selling point. Something much more than a standard training missions for other modules but in-depth training which would provide information about aviation concepts and give possibility to practice procedures step by step. Comparable to the various A-10C training qualification camapigns but then again as the mentioned campaign has proved this could be done with non-trainer module.

 

You need steep before run. If you not know the learning process to build a high fidelity aircraft on DCS: World, your project can be direct road to doom, some examples, Coretex F/A-18E, Kinney F-35, IRIS F-22 and F-15E, Mil-Sim-Projects F-104 and others previous before them.

...

The goal is clear and valid, it's never a good idea to jump into a deep water straight away. But than what is the goal and how it's achieved are separate things. Obviously starting with F/A-18E as a first project would be connected with a high risk of failure, extended timelines, underestimated resources and risk for low quality of final product. There could be however other ways to build up an experience like for instance with less complex aircrafts but those that are still more anticipated by the community than the trainers.

Edited August 9, 2016 by firmek

[Fab]

That's your opinion, not held by everyone. And if you are going to insult people that have interests other than you, you should probably make sure you spell your insult correctly...

 

If you don't like them, don't buy them, but don't try and speak for anyone other than yourself, and next time, try doing it in a mature and respectful manner.

 

We are a rather large community, that like to do aerobatic. As such the trainers are perfect for formation aerobatic, and the 2 seaters are great for teaching and filming....

[MikeMikeJuliet]

People here talk about "most people" or "a lot of us". Do you actually have statistics either way to back you up other than say "me and my buddy here hate/love trainers, so that means most of the community does too".

 

And for those who say making a full blown combat aircraft is easy because "someone made a mod all by them selves and it worked", consider the following: A clearly you have no clue how software developement works. There ARE very talented individuals who can do all things in the world if they want, yes. But most developers won't be able to aquire such talent even if they wanted to. Those rare successes are the exception, not the norm.

 

As many of you here have stated, there are people who want and do buy trainers. Others who don't. Remember that there are airforces in the world who use trainers for combat purposes. Also note that not every pilot flies every aircraft. You don't need every simmer to fly every aircraft. Its called "variety"

 

When it comes to integrating different weapons or systems to different aircraft with the mentality "this already works in A10-C so its easy to just put it in the other aircraft...". No. Each aircraft has it's licence owned by some company. In order to develop an aircraft for money you need specific permissions from said company to develop all the systems in it, including weapon systems and thus weapon integration. If no permission is granted to develop a system, no matter if similar system was already in another aircraft, its a no-go.

 

Also, developers create aircraft they feel comfortable with and want to develop. You buy the modules you want. There clearly is a market for trainers or otherwise they would not be made. There is variety there. And we ARE getting combat aircraft all the time. As a lot of you said, VEAO is working on combat aircraft, so is Leathernec, RAZBAM, ED, Aviodev and Polychop. We just haopened to get a couple of trainers at a similar timeframe.

 

And talk about trainers and training. Say, you have a friend who really would like to fly, but has no idea what anything is or how anything works. I for one would buy a trainer module for him/her to get up to speed because that's an easier step into the sim. Simpler procedurds, less systems to worry about, all that sort of thing. I've heard plenty of people tell newbies "buy the A10-C now", without realizing that might be way too intimidating. If you have an interest but not the knowledge, an advanced aircraft may seem too much to handle.

 

Remember that none of us here look into this without a bias. We are already "in".

 

What we do need, is proper simulation of ATC and navaids and then proper, in-depth training missions to qualify you from a newbie to a fighter/attacker pilot. From what I understand, VEAO has such a campaign in the works when Hawk and Typhoon are working as intended.

 

 

Now relax. Chill. Enjoy. And remember: even if you don't believe it, DCS is better than it has ever been, and continues to develop further. Let's not be ungrateful. Go shoot down a trainer if that makes you feel better.

 

Humble regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

Edited August 31, 2016 by MikeMikeJuliet

[MasterZelgadis]

I've heard plenty of people tell newbies "buy the A10-C now"

And I still do, because if you want to fly the A-10C, there is no reason to buy a trainer. You don't need all the systems to learn how to fly the A-10. If you master the flying, you can easily add more and more systems to your training. There is absolutely no reason to buy a full price module just to learn how to get it flying, just to buy then a full price module again, because you wanted it to fly anyway (and learn most things again, because it behaves greatly different than the trainer module).

 

BUT I do not say trainer modules are unnecessary, I like them, and I like to fly them. But not with the goal to train for a completely different module.