New L-39 Inquiry Thread

[raptr12]

Dear DCS forum friends,

 

*I offended many of you in a previous post and I wish to start a new productive post on the topic of the L-39. The powers that be found a couple of my comments too offensive or too against the grain to allow, so my post was censored. This time, I will step more cautiously, be more considerate, and consider all of your views respectfully.

 

It is my humble opinion that time spent on the L-39 could have been better used on the F-18F.

 

To me, the L-39 has no place in the current line up of DCS Fighters. It is my feeling that the majority of players would prefer time be spent on fighter aircraft rather than the L-39 trainer.

 

This being said, the L-39 is an excellent proof-of-concept for multicrew and I find this titillating. I will reiterate that I wish this proof-of-concept was simply actualized in the form the of the F-18, but we can't change the past.

 

I understand there are those of you from Afghanistan, Syria, Lybia, and other third world countries that really love the L-39. I understand your passion for this aircraft, but I wish to squash the idea that this 1960's era trainer can effectively do any mission relevant to modern militaries. It has no radar, no MFD's, and no real purpose in combat but as a target. I realize this is a simulation, but even the simulated variant has no place in the DCS environment.

 

To those of you that love the idea of having a trainer I ask, why? A two seater of any other fighter aircraft could serve as a trainer AND be a useful aircraft in the DCS combat world.

 

I write this simply to say I hope that devs might consider these factors into future development.

 

Love,

Raptr

[Goldham]

You do know ED has been working on the F-18 for years right? The L-39 was developed in parallel with it. And from what I understand, the main limitation of the F-18 was the ground radar so the other coders and artists and whoever worked on the L-39 in the meantime.

[NeilWillis]

Do you honestly think that without your pearls of wisdom, the developers wouldn't know what to produce? And anyway, what is an F18F? I have heard of something called an F/A-18F, could that be it?

 

A few simple facts...

 

They have access to L-39s, they have pilots who trained in them. There are quite a few people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the USA involved - I know! shocking isn't it! And here's one that will really throw you....

 

It is the most popular jet aircraft among private fliers in the USA too!!!

 

If I were you, I'd stop wondering why everyone doesn't think like you, and start thinking about what makes a module viable in DCS World. The number 1 consideration is how realistic a module they can make. And to do that, you need people who have flown the real thing, access to the real thing, and above all, a license to actually use the intellectual rights to it. As a testbed for multiplayer multi seat, it seems to be quite perfect - simple, and available.

 

Another little gem for you...

 

Why does it need to be sophisticated and radar capable to be fun to fly and fight in? What is wrong with seat-of-your-pants, no frills, hardly any power aircraft? Wouldn't it be far far more satisfying to defy the odds and achieve something than going in certain that you out gun, out see, and out fly your opposition?

 

So, instead of bringing prejudice, and short sightedness to the forum, why not think outside the box and see the L-39 for what it is. Oh and in case you didn't notice, there is a lot less work involved in producing a simple, low-tech module to the marketplace. If it was the F/A-18F, we'd still be waiting for it next Christmas. Plus of course, there is already an F/A-18C coming. I can just see your howls of derision when there were 2 F/A-18s and no F-16!

 

So, thanks for your philosophical venture into module selection, but frankly, it has all been said before, and no doubt the next person with such insightful clarity will be along soon.

 

Even more love (and kisses),

 

Neil

 

P.S. Thanks for the contribution, even if it was utterly pointless as the decision to produce the L-39 was probably taken 2 years ago, and the designers will continue to produce whatever they feel they wish to.

[golani79]

A two seater of any other fighter aircraft could serve as a trainer AND be a useful aircraft in the DCS combat world.

 

 

Any?:megalol:

 

Don´t get me wrong - I wouldn´t have a problem with such an aircraft as well as I don´t have a problem with the L-39

Every aircraft in DCS has its purpose and its pilots - so why leave one out?

 

Somehow it often seems to me that people think they are handled short on their side of expectations for DCS because there is always aicraft X,Y and Z in the way of the most important aircraft for which they so desperately seem to wait.

Edited February 20, 2016 by golani79

[uboats]

 

Any?:megalol:

 

Don´t get me wrong - I wouldn´t have a problem with such an aircraft as well as I don´t have a problem with the L-39

Every aircraft in DCS has its purpose and its pilots - so why leave one out?

 

Somehow it often seems to me that people think they are handled short on their side of expectations for DCS because there is always aicraft X,Y and Z in the way of the most important aircraft for which they so desperately seem to wait.

 

haha, you made my day :)

[NeilWillis]

Ah those were the days - when engines had chimneys!

 

I hate to say this though - the RE8 didn't have radar either!

[msalama]

the RE8 didn't have radar either!

 

As I just said elsewhere: a proper WW1 add-on to DCS would just ROCK, end of. Would buy _everything_ produced for it in a heartbeat.

[Phantom453]

Do you honestly think that without your pearls of wisdom, the developers wouldn't know what to produce? And anyway, what is an F18F? I have heard of something called an F/A-18F, could that be it?

 

A few simple facts...

 

They have access to L-39s, they have pilots who trained in them. There are quite a few people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the USA involved - I know! shocking isn't it! And here's one that will really throw you....

 

It is the most popular jet aircraft among private fliers in the USA too!!!

 

If I were you, I'd stop wondering why everyone doesn't think like you, and start thinking about what makes a module viable in DCS World. The number 1 consideration is how realistic a module they can make. And to do that, you need people who have flown the real thing, access to the real thing, and above all, a license to actually use the intellectual rights to it. As a testbed for multiplayer multi seat, it seems to be quite perfect - simple, and available.

 

Another little gem for you...

 

Why does it need to be sophisticated and radar capable to be fun to fly and fight in? What is wrong with seat-of-your-pants, no frills, hardly any power aircraft? Wouldn't it be far far more satisfying to defy the odds and achieve something than going in certain that you out gun, out see, and out fly your opposition?

 

So, instead of bringing prejudice, and short sightedness to the forum, why not think outside the box and see the L-39 for what it is. Oh and in case you didn't notice, there is a lot less work involved in producing a simple, low-tech module to the marketplace. If it was the F/A-18F, we'd still be waiting for it next Christmas. Plus of course, there is already an F/A-18C coming. I can just see your howls of derision when there were 2 F/A-18s and no F-16!

 

So, thanks for your philosophical venture into module selection, but frankly, it has all been said before, and no doubt the next person with such insightful clarity will be along soon.

 

Even more love (and kisses),

 

Neil

 

P.S. Thanks for the contribution, even if it was utterly pointless as the decision to produce the L-39 was probably taken 2 years ago, and the designers will continue to produce whatever they feel they wish to.

 

@ NeilWillis - I'm surprised you took that bait.

[Vitormouraa]

I thought the people wanted the F-22 :lol:

[Flagrum]

Dear DCS forum friends,

 

*I offended many of you in a previous post and I wish to start a new productive post on the topic of the L-39. The powers that be found a couple of my comments too offensive or too against the grain to allow, so my post was censored. This time, I will step more cautiously, be more considerate, and consider all of your views respectfully.

 

It is my humble opinion that time spent on the L-39 could have been better used on the F-18F.

 

To me, the L-39 has no place in the current line up of DCS Fighters. It is my feeling that the majority of players would prefer time be spent on fighter aircraft rather than the L-39 trainer.

 

This being said, the L-39 is an excellent proof-of-concept for multicrew and I find this titillating. I will reiterate that I wish this proof-of-concept was simply actualized in the form the of the F-18, but we can't change the past.

 

I understand there are those of you from Afghanistan, Syria, Lybia, and other third world countries that really love the L-39. I understand your passion for this aircraft, but I wish to squash the idea that this 1960's era trainer can effectively do any mission relevant to modern militaries. It has no radar, no MFD's, and no real purpose in combat but as a target. I realize this is a simulation, but even the simulated variant has no place in the DCS environment.

 

To those of you that love the idea of having a trainer I ask, why? A two seater of any other fighter aircraft could serve as a trainer AND be a useful aircraft in the DCS combat world.

 

I write this simply to say I hope that devs might consider these factors into future development.

 

Love,

Raptr

What you seem not to be able to understand is, that there is a huge diversity in the community/player base of DCS. Different time periods, different types of aircraft, different aircraft roles, different aircraft systems, different mission profiles, different geographical regions, heck, even different level of fidelity of the sim overall - everyone has one or more of these aspects that he is interested in more or not so much.

 

The "third world" aircraft L-39 can't do missions that modern militaries would require? Maybe. But it can perform well in other types of missions, in different time lines. Same is btw true for a Fw 190, a Sabre, etc.

 

Personally I do not care much about the trainer aspect of the L-39. I rather find the light attack aircraft L-39ZA more interesting. You don't. That is ok, just don't buy/fly it .... problem solved! (??)

[WinterH]

Your opinion is full of prejudice.

 

First off, a DCS module does not necessarily be something that is relevant to modern militaries. Also, L-39 is fairly popular even in USA as an aerobatics aircraft, and lets just say "those of you from third world countries may like it" is not exactly constructive either.

 

Like it or not, not everybody is looking only for "combat aircraft relevant to modern militaries", nor everyone is into "multiplayer environment" (i.e. airquake).

 

I don't have the L-39, but I have two other trainers, Hawk and C-101. L-39 is much more complete a product. I will also get Embraer Tucano when it is released.

 

I don't care much for two seater versions of fighter aircraft if it has a single seat one, I'd prefer it. So F-18C or E over D or F any day for me.

 

But I find L-39 to be a nice and interesting aircraft. I see over the L-39 part of forums, those who preferred to get it feel similarly. This 60s era trainer obviously is not a first line combat aircraft, but it can (and does IRL) counter insurgency type light air support. Also it is a very popular aerobatic demonstration aircraft. People may just like to explore these concepts in a module. Therefore, it has appeal beyond trainer function. I seriously doubt that, of all the people who has bought/will buy DCS trainer modules, percentage of those who are mainly interested in trainer function to be more than may be 20% or so.

 

This whole misconception of "relevance to DCS environment" we often see here, is in contradiction with DCS reality. Since there already are modules of :

- Utility helicopters (UH-1H and Mi-8Mtv2)

- Trainers & light attack (L-39, C-101, Hawk)

- WW II fighters (P-51D, Bf-109K4, Fw-190D9)

- 50s jets (F-86F, MiG-15Bis)

 

And many more such modules AND terrain are coming, as well as relevant ground units / ships etc.

 

Also, there are 3rd generation combat jets released (MiG-21Bis) or will soon release (F-5E, AJS-37 Viggen). By your definition of relevance, these too are out of relevance range.

 

I understand, and support your desire for what floats your boat, more capable and modern aircraft. Those are in the works too, and many of them are expected to release in a year. We already have a beta version Mirage 2000C, ED also hope to release F-18C as a beta sometime this year, F-14A & F-14B are coming, and even a Eurofighter Typhoon is in the works.

 

DCS is not a specific era simulator. And not everyone is after a specific era (i.e. 80s-90s and beyond). Many of us, including myself, look forward to more obscure aircraft than more of modern planes. It is good that there are products in DCS to cater to everyone.

[Robbinsat]

I have been lurking this forum for a while but now I felt I had to register to say this.

 

NeilWillis I saw your post both in this thread and in the Hawk thread. There is absolutely NO NEED to talk down to everyone posting on these forums. Nor is there a need to defend every developer decision and promote fanboyism, nothing constructive will come from this. Please allow people to express their opinions and concerns with DCS and its modules without bashing them for it. People are paying money which means that they at least have the right to ask their questions (I am not saying that they should lead the development)

 

Do you honestly think that without your pearls of wisdom, the developers wouldn't know what to produce? And anyway, what is an F18F? I have heard of something called an F/A-18F, could that be it?

 

A few simple facts...

 

They have access to L-39s, they have pilots who trained in them. There are quite a few people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the USA involved - I know! shocking isn't it! And here's one that will really throw you....

 

It is the most popular jet aircraft among private fliers in the USA too!!!

 

If I were you, I'd stop wondering why everyone doesn't think like you, and start thinking about what makes a module viable in DCS World. The number 1 consideration is how realistic a module they can make. And to do that, you need people who have flown the real thing, access to the real thing, and above all, a license to actually use the intellectual rights to it. As a testbed for multiplayer multi seat, it seems to be quite perfect - simple, and available.

 

Another little gem for you...

 

Why does it need to be sophisticated and radar capable to be fun to fly and fight in? What is wrong with seat-of-your-pants, no frills, hardly any power aircraft? Wouldn't it be far far more satisfying to defy the odds and achieve something than going in certain that you out gun, out see, and out fly your opposition?

 

So, instead of bringing prejudice, and short sightedness to the forum, why not think outside the box and see the L-39 for what it is. Oh and in case you didn't notice, there is a lot less work involved in producing a simple, low-tech module to the marketplace. If it was the F/A-18F, we'd still be waiting for it next Christmas. Plus of course, there is already an F/A-18C coming. I can just see your howls of derision when there were 2 F/A-18s and no F-16!

 

So, thanks for your philosophical venture into module selection, but frankly, it has all been said before, and no doubt the next person with such insightful clarity will be along soon.

 

Even more love (and kisses),

 

Neil

 

P.S. Thanks for the contribution, even if it was utterly pointless as the decision to produce the L-39 was probably taken 2 years ago, and the designers will continue to produce whatever they feel they wish to.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Robbinsat

[159th_Falcon]

@ WinterH +1, nuff said.

[sobek]

It is my humble opinion that time spent on the L-39 could have been better used on the F-18F.

 

Ok, but tell you what, actually that makes no sense.

 

Multi crew is not a small feature measured on the amount of development necessary to make it happen. What seems less risky to you:

 

 

• Putting it into a comparatively small and safe project where the only real development risk is multi crew, everything else you've got well covered because your engineers have a lot of experience by now. The project development cycle time is easier to judge and you can start to generate revenue based on that new feature relatively soon.
  
• Putting it into a large project with lots of other features that are at high risk of causing budget and time overruns, a long time span until the project will be able to generate revenue (that is potentially higher than the small project, but you'll also have burned a hole into your pocket funding all those new technologies).
  

 

 

If you stop to think about it from the angle of project management, apart from just thinking about what you want right now, there really is no question about why ED did what they did.

[NineLine]

The L-39, as I understand it, has been "on the ED shelf" for some time. I believe it was pulled off that shelf as a test bed aircraft for multicrew. Not to mention, ED has pilots on staff familiar with this aircraft. It hasnt blocked or stopped ED from developing the F/A-18C (or anything else for that matter), so an claims as such are uninformed.

 

Development of aircraft go through many steps, and multiple aircraft can be at different stages in development and not effect another one. Examples would be modeling of cockpit systems wouldnt effect work on the 3D model, etc.

 

If you dont like the L-39, dont buy it. Its as simple as that, I think you will find that you will be missing out, but by no means does anyone think every single DCS user will buy every single DCS release. Some people dont like the WWII birds, some dont like Helicopters, etc... buy what you like, but realize others might not share your opinion. The L-39 is doing just fine, and those that have purchased it enjoy it.

 

Dear DCS forum friends,

 

*I offended many of you in a previous post and I wish to start a new productive post on the topic of the L-39. The powers that be found a couple of my comments too offensive or too against the grain to allow, so my post was censored. This time, I will step more cautiously, be more considerate, and consider all of your views respectfully.

 

It is my humble opinion that time spent on the L-39 could have been better used on the F-18F.

 

To me, the L-39 has no place in the current line up of DCS Fighters. It is my feeling that the majority of players would prefer time be spent on fighter aircraft rather than the L-39 trainer.

 

This being said, the L-39 is an excellent proof-of-concept for multicrew and I find this titillating. I will reiterate that I wish this proof-of-concept was simply actualized in the form the of the F-18, but we can't change the past.

 

I understand there are those of you from Afghanistan, Syria, Lybia, and other third world countries that really love the L-39. I understand your passion for this aircraft, but I wish to squash the idea that this 1960's era trainer can effectively do any mission relevant to modern militaries. It has no radar, no MFD's, and no real purpose in combat but as a target. I realize this is a simulation, but even the simulated variant has no place in the DCS environment.

 

To those of you that love the idea of having a trainer I ask, why? A two seater of any other fighter aircraft could serve as a trainer AND be a useful aircraft in the DCS combat world.

 

I write this simply to say I hope that devs might consider these factors into future development.

 

Love,

Raptr

[SirBunker]

To me, the L-39 has no place in the current line up of DCS Fighters.

 

To those of you that love the idea of having a trainer I ask, why?

 

Why would it have to fit among DCS' fighter jets? It's not a fighter jet and neither are the WW2 fighters in game, or the helicopters. Neither do the MiG-15 or F-86 fit together with the later ones. Even MiG-21 is obsolete among the planes it fights online.

 

Why should a low-threat / low-tech combat environment be ruled out from DCS? Helicopters already go into that slot.

 

People love flying jet trainers for the simple fact that they're a joy to fly. In the L-39's case, the module actually includes a light attack variant so you have a gun and a few pylons for missiles, bombs, rockets or bulletfarmers. I don't see what the problem is, apart from "it's not a [insert list of your favorite aircraft]". Luckily the L-39 in the list of my favorite aircraft, so everything's great. :thumbup:

[raptr12]

Do you honestly think that without your pearls of wisdom, the developers wouldn't know what to produce? And anyway, what is an F18F? I have heard of something called an F/A-18F, could that be it?

 

A few simple facts...

 

They have access to L-39s, they have pilots who trained in them. There are quite a few people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the USA involved - I know! shocking isn't it! And here's one that will really throw you....

 

It is the most popular jet aircraft among private fliers in the USA too!!!

 

If I were you, I'd stop wondering why everyone doesn't think like you, and start thinking about what makes a module viable in DCS World. The number 1 consideration is how realistic a module they can make. And to do that, you need people who have flown the real thing, access to the real thing, and above all, a license to actually use the intellectual rights to it. As a testbed for multiplayer multi seat, it seems to be quite perfect - simple, and available.

 

Another little gem for you...

 

Why does it need to be sophisticated and radar capable to be fun to fly and fight in? What is wrong with seat-of-your-pants, no frills, hardly any power aircraft? Wouldn't it be far far more satisfying to defy the odds and achieve something than going in certain that you out gun, out see, and out fly your opposition?

 

Love you too,

Raptr

 

So, instead of bringing prejudice, and short sightedness to the forum, why not think outside the box and see the L-39 for what it is. Oh and in case you didn't notice, there is a lot less work involved in producing a simple, low-tech module to the marketplace. If it was the F/A-18F, we'd still be waiting for it next Christmas. Plus of course, there is already an F/A-18C coming. I can just see your howls of derision when there were 2 F/A-18s and no F-16!

 

So, thanks for your philosophical venture into module selection, but frankly, it has all been said before, and no doubt the next person with such insightful clarity will be along soon.

 

Even more love (and kisses),

 

Neil

 

P.S. Thanks for the contribution, even if it was utterly pointless as the decision to produce the L-39 was probably taken 2 years ago, and the designers will continue to produce whatever they feel they wish to.

 

Be careful... The tone of your voice isn't offending me, but may offend others here. They are quite sensitive to this. Too much aggression and you might get censored like my last thread :thumbup:.

 

Yes, clearly I meant the F/A-18F. I'm glad you clarified that. I hope I didn't confuse you.

 

It doesn't need to be sophisticated to be fun. My argument is that it should fit into plethora of aircraft already available. As a testbed for multicrew, its fine. But the same testing could have easily been done with, for example, a bare-bones, two seat, twin-engine carrier-capable multirole Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet (I hope it's clear which aircraft I am speaking of here). And yes, we would still be waiting till whenever, but it could theoretically have come quicker than designing, what is in my view, an aircraft that has no place in DCS (the L-39 Albatros).

 

I understand that the L-39 is now a sunk cost. There will always be people that want odd aircraft in DCS. I am not complaining that it was made, just hoping to have a discussion that my persuade developers to focus their time on more productive things. Aircraft and simulation enhancements that would undoubtedly make them significantly more money than aircraft that, again, have extremely small niche uses.

[raptr12]

 

Any?:megalol:

 

Don´t get me wrong - I wouldn´t have a problem with such an aircraft as well as I don´t have a problem with the L-39

Every aircraft in DCS has its purpose and its pilots - so why leave one out?

 

Somehow it often seems to me that people think they are handled short on their side of expectations for DCS because there is always aicraft X,Y and Z in the way of the most important aircraft for which they so desperately seem to wait.

 

 

You even quoted me where I say in all caps "AND" be useful in conjunction with the other aircraft currently available.

[raptr12]

Your opinion is full of prejudice.

 

First off, a DCS module does not necessarily be something that is relevant to modern militaries. Also, L-39 is fairly popular even in USA as an aerobatics aircraft, and lets just say "those of you from third world countries may like it" is not exactly constructive either.

 

Like it or not, not everybody is looking only for "combat aircraft relevant to modern militaries", nor everyone is into "multiplayer environment" (i.e. airquake).

 

I don't have the L-39, but I have two other trainers, Hawk and C-101. L-39 is much more complete a product. I will also get Embraer Tucano when it is released.

 

I don't care much for two seater versions of fighter aircraft if it has a single seat one, I'd prefer it. So F-18C or E over D or F any day for me.

 

But I find L-39 to be a nice and interesting aircraft. I see over the L-39 part of forums, those who preferred to get it feel similarly. This 60s era trainer obviously is not a first line combat aircraft, but it can (and does IRL) counter insurgency type light air support. Also it is a very popular aerobatic demonstration aircraft. People may just like to explore these concepts in a module. Therefore, it has appeal beyond trainer function. I seriously doubt that, of all the people who has bought/will buy DCS trainer modules, percentage of those who are mainly interested in trainer function to be more than may be 20% or so.

 

This whole misconception of "relevance to DCS environment" we often see here, is in contradiction with DCS reality. Since there already are modules of :

- Utility helicopters (UH-1H and Mi-8Mtv2)

- Trainers & light attack (L-39, C-101, Hawk)

- WW II fighters (P-51D, Bf-109K4, Fw-190D9)

- 50s jets (F-86F, MiG-15Bis)

 

And many more such modules AND terrain are coming, as well as relevant ground units / ships etc.

 

Also, there are 3rd generation combat jets released (MiG-21Bis) or will soon release (F-5E, AJS-37 Viggen). By your definition of relevance, these too are out of relevance range.

 

I understand, and support your desire for what floats your boat, more capable and modern aircraft. Those are in the works too, and many of them are expected to release in a year. We already have a beta version Mirage 2000C, ED also hope to release F-18C as a beta sometime this year, F-14A & F-14B are coming, and even a Eurofighter Typhoon is in the works.

 

DCS is not a specific era simulator. And not everyone is after a specific era (i.e. 80s-90s and beyond). Many of us, including myself, look forward to more obscure aircraft than more of modern planes. It is good that there are products in DCS to cater to everyone.

 

I agree with you on many points.

 

DCS is not a specific era simulator. BUT, all the eras within DCS can be flown separately in a way that makes sense. I just don't see where trainers have a role in any of them, or where I wouldn't rather have time spent on a more useful aircraft.

[SirBunker]

I just don't see where trainers have a role in any of them

 

But... you already gave real world examples in your opening post. :music_whistling:

[raptr12]

Ok, but tell you what, actually that makes no sense.

 

Multi crew is not a small feature measured on the amount of development necessary to make it happen. What seems less risky to you:

 

 

• Putting it into a comparatively small and safe project where the only real development risk is multi crew, everything else you've got well covered because your engineers have a lot of experience by now. The project development cycle time is easier to judge and you can start to generate revenue based on that new feature relatively soon.
  
• Putting it into a large project with lots of other features that are at high risk of causing budget and time overruns, a long time span until the project will be able to generate revenue (that is potentially higher than the small project, but you'll also have burned a hole into your pocket funding all those new technologies).
  

 

 

If you stop to think about it from the angle of project management, apart from just thinking about what you want right now, there really is no question about why ED did what they did.

 

As I said to someone earlier, a bare-bones F/A-18 or F-14 or F-15E or F-16D etc etc could all be test beds for multicrew. Leatherneck is already developing a F-14 which is only available with two seats. It would have been a much better test-bed from an efficiency standpoint.

[BlackLion213]

I just don't see where trainers have a role in any of them

 

Ahh...found the problem! You need an eye exam. ;)

 

Get that cleared up and things will make more sense. :D

 

I kid, but it is a pretty similar argument.

 

Plus, all this L-39, Spitfire, and F/A-18 Hornet development is totally interfering with the development of the ultimate DCS module:

 

 

The F3H-2 Demon! It's perfect! Carrier ops, multi-role, and...my most critical litmus test - it's wearing a BlackLion! :D

 

But I don't understand how decisions are made around here..... ;)

 

-Nick

 

PS:

As I said to someone earlier, a bare-bones F/A-18 or F-14 or F-15E or F-16D etc etc could all be test beds for multicrew. Leatherneck is already developing a F-14 which is only available with two seats. It would have been a much better test-bed from an efficiency standpoint.

 

The community here has it made it quite clear that they want complete aircraft, things with SFM and SSM have not been well-received. FYI...

Edited February 21, 2016 by BlackLion213
Improvements :)

[raptr12]

Ahh...found the problem! You need an eye exam. ;)

 

Get that cleared up and things will make more senese. :D

 

-Nick

 

PS:

 

 

The community here has it made it quite clear that they want complete aircraft, things with SFM and SSM have not been well-received. FYI...

 

I'm not suggesting they release a bare-bones/incomplete aircraft for purchase. I was merely suggesting they could use one for testing the concept of multicrew as opposed to developing a complete aircraft for that purpose. Although, speaking of incompleteness, arguably that was what the last Mirage release was... (I don't believe they have even fixed the IFF yet).

[zaelu]

Dear DCS forum friends,

 

...

It is my humble opinion that time spent on the L-39 could have been better used on the F-18F.

 

To me, the L-39 has no place in the current line up of DCS Fighters. It is my feeling that the majority of players would prefer time be spent on fighter aircraft rather than the L-39 trainer.

 

Majority again...

 

From US you mean? Cause if you ask "the majority" of Russian players I doubt they will shout F/A-18...F (I had yo google what is the F... oh... some Super Hornet, ok).

 

Let me give you some examples of wishes:

 

I would like a Mig21 Lancer... why? Because it is the Romanian Mig21 and I am Romanian... the Majority of Romanians blah blah blah... However, Having already a 21 Bis by LNS at very good quality satisfies a good part of Mig21 thirst and knowing how hard is to build a plane from scratch and how similar in the end the Bis and Lancer are (wow factor if you wish, I know the differences in avionics etc) I wouldn't bother LNS or other developer with requests for a Lancer.

 

Same is for me with F18... There is a C coming so the little bigger and more badarse one that is F is almost irrelevant for me. So whining about an F without waiting the C is a bit "juvenile" for me.

 

As for trainers.... L-39 is quite a known plane and is very well made, I had last night quite a few laughs with a friend of mine stealing each others the control over one single aircraft so... fun.

 

Would I have wanted more a T-38? Yes... sure... but "I don't dare to request". Maybe at some point someone will make one. Or how about a IAR-99 SOIM? Never heard of it isn't it? :D

 

And not all players want more fighters... some want more maps... or other assets from DCS... like tankers, transport planes, etc. Wanting a "click-click last gen plane" is boring for many.

[Vitormouraa]

I agree with you on many points.

 

DCS is not a specific era simulator. BUT, all the eras within DCS can be flown separately in a way that makes sense. I just don't see where trainers have a role in any of them, or where I wouldn't rather have time spent on a more useful aircraft.

 

Sorry, but, are you mad? at least you seem to be. You don't see space to jet trainers in the game, but this is what you think, who am I or you to say it shouldn't be in DCS? Hm, I don't know. For example, I know the VEAO is making P-40, and I don't like it so far, but should I make a thread saying it doesn't have space in DCS because I like more modern fighters or there is nothing to fight against the P-40? No, I can think that, but saying it shouldn't be in the game or something like that, I don't think so. Everyone here has different opinions, if you don't like the plane, just don't buy it, very simple. It can be USEFUL for a lot of people, for example that player that, wants an aircraft to practice the IFR, or rockets, weapons, I don't know, you can't say it's useless, knowing there are millions of players, users, there is no how.

 

Actually, the ED makes what they can, I wanted the F-35, F-22, Su-35.. but is it possible? No! So the ED will make what they can, simple, as I said, the ED gets experiences from those projects, even thought they are jet trainers, and that is a good thing, for us and ED. But now, we can't say it shouldn't be in the game because you just don't like the plane or think it's useless. because it's not. If the ED doesn't have docs enough, they won't make plane that awesome plane that you wanted..

 

As you said, the DCS isn't a specific era simulator, that is right, knowing that, in the future they can make modules to fight against the plane you didn't like, or that plane you said in the past it had not space, examples, in 2014/2013 when I saw the Leatherneck was making the MiG-21bis, I thought, well why are they making that very old plane for DCS? to die by Flankers and Eagles? it can not be the best plane, but it can be your favorite, the module that you most enjoy flying, the TF-51 can't do anything in the game, but I like it so much, how is that possible? because this is what I think, and I won't make a thread on the forum saying the TF-51 has no space in DCS and it's useless. It can be useful for someone, you're not the only one user in DCS World.

 

Just stop, and think, why they made the L-39 and not the Super Hornet.. and why the people buy the Albatros? because they like it?

Edited February 21, 2016 by Vitormouraa