Dev's please stop developing trainer jets

[shab249]

Yep, can't go wrong with the L39, great fun to fly, primarily due to the flight model being so great. If you have a force feedback joystick, then you have one more reason to go for it.

I actually really miss this feture when i play all the modules except the SU-25T it's nice to know that the L-39 has it

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[exray]

You're late to the party, as far as I know there are no more trainers in development for DCS anyway. Though you probably can count the RAZBAM Tucano as a trainer, depending how you look at it, and which version they are going to make eventually.

 

Thankfully Razbam has recently announced that they are doing the A29 Super Tucano (definitely not a trainer) instead of the A27 Tucano. Interest revived for me.

[Aginor]

I think that if you want a basic old prop plane try the TF-51 it's basic a trainer and free

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

I think you misunderstood my intentions.

1. The P-51 is a 70 year old plane. It is a trainer, but not something you would use today. When I say prop trainers I mean Grob G120TP or T-27 Tucano. Modern props.

2. I don't plan to get any more trainers. I do own all existing ones and don't need more. I just wouldn't be angry if anyone made more, especially if they are not too similar to the four existing ones, which are all land-based, three of them are jets with very similar performance.

If people want them, then by all means someone should make them.

 

EDIT:

Thankfully Razbam has recently announced that they are doing the A29 Super Tucano (definitely not a trainer) instead of the A27 Tucano. Interest revived for me.

 

That's right! I prooobably wouldn't have bought the T-27 but a A-29 is much more interesting!

[kontiuka]

Well if you want to "relax" i think the FC3 jets are great for that

The trainers are actually a nice middle ground. With the FC3 jets, you press a few buttons and you're ready to go but this is kind of boring to me. With the trainers, you have to go through a realistic but relatively simple start-up process so you still get that feeling of immersion but you're in the air more quickly than say an M2000C (8 minute alignment! EGAD!)

 

P.S. I fly the C-101 all the time and looking forward to the EFM and weapons.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Devs please, develope whatever you like, inspire, love and make you feel passion about.

 

Let the rest of us choose.

[NeilWillis]

Don't like - don't buy. It's called market forces. You are wasting your time telling developers what to develop and what not to develop - they have their own agendas, and frankly if you think they'll alter their plans just because you whine a bit about what you don't want, then I think trainers are just the thing for you!

[ebabil]

If dcs will have proper atc, weather and other physics perfectly, trainers would be great way to learn flying for real pilot students. they can even be used as commercial and military simulators for airforces / airlines world wide.

for my taste, i don't like them either , and i don't buy them.

[BIGNEWY]

Long and short of it

 

everyone has an opinion, love or hate a particular aircraft, do not assume you speak for everyone, and do not assume you are correct, there is no right or wrong :)

 

I am happy every time a module is released no matter if I like the aircraft or not, it means we are moving forward, and we need to encourage and keep that momentum going, stay positive.

Edited February 9, 2017 by BIGNEWY

[shagrat]

i think everyone learn how to fly with every planes in this sim

Real pilots don't, I wonder why.

[shagrat]

Dev's can learn throw the development of a big jet and than fixing their bags

(Code is code the plane dosent matter)

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

You, sir, have noooo idea. :D

[shab249]

You, sir, have noooo idea. :D

I understand that things like radar are really hard but they can atleast develop some ww2 jets or simple attack jets like super tucano (the first training jet that i think is important because of the capabilities)

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[NeilWillis]

The Me-262 and the Meteor are both in development. Are two WW2 jets not enough for you? The Super Tucano is a turboprop, not a jet, and as such will be the first hi fidelity turboprop available to us. That alone is a very good reason to make it happen, wouldn't you agree?

[Pikey]

Hmmm did you just belittle 4th gen avionics in the glass cockpit modern Super Tucano?

 

Let's side step that blunder for a moment and just outline one thing. What you think is simple is most certainly not and the proof is in the development time that's for all to see. It takes years for modules. Look at F-18C for the last few years, we've seen pictures of that, from the Russian producer, looking at a fully modelled plane and cockpit, and still stated it would take another year of development on just the avionics and systems, and these are the people who likely have the most experience in producing modules with a bigger studio of developers, more experience and resources.

 

It's just very very complex to do these to DCS standard. Look at the year of Mirage refinement and its not out of early access. For third parties trainers was even an incredibly complex and long project that surprised them (Hi Hawk, C101, looking at you).

I understand that things like radar are really hard but they can atleast develop some ww2 jets or simple attack jets like super tucano (the first training jet that i think is important because of the capabilities)

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Coxy_99]

STOPPPP. Please

It's useless. Why would someone buy the hawk or any other trainer if you have modules like the mig-21 or the viggen?

develope a real fighters like the mig-23 or A-7 And Where the hell is my phantom!?!?!. I'll smash the pre order button as soon it will be available

But please even if it's helicopter that no one heard (sorry gazelle) but dont waste your time on trainers.

Dont you see all the hype about the F-14 and the JAS-37?? Do you really think the hype about the T-2 or any other trainer is large like those jets?

 

And dont move/delete the thread, it's about DCS in general

 

Please stop saying that i need to vote with my wallet and shut up i'm just saying my opinion

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

 

Jump on the ACG server in 1.5.5 and i can assure you the hawk is no useless aircraft, Im also using the L-39ZA to take out blue F-5's, So why not trainers? I also take guys up in the 2nd seat to spot enemy aircraft its all about the SA :music_whistling:

Infact its no different from why would you fly the F-86?

Edited February 9, 2017 by Coxy_99

[outlawal2]

The lack of knowledge in this thread regarding the difficulties of creating one of these modules is staggering.. But whatever..

 

Below is a posting I made back in 2015 regarding the topic of trainers in DCS and I think it is still relevant..

 

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

[rrohde]

Agree with BIGNEWY here... all modules are welcome, and I buy them all - but that doesn't mean that I always fly them. Love to support my hobby either way.

 

Trainers are nice because I can focus on learning aviation aspects that I would normally not focus on in my go-to modules.

[Coxy_99]

Agree with BIGNEWY here... all modules are welcome, and I buy them all - but that doesn't mean that I always fly them. Love to support my hobby either way.

 

Trainers are nice because I can focus on learning aviation aspects that I would normally not focus on in my go-to modules.

 

C-101 has some noice navigation systems.

[shagrat]

I understand that things like radar are really hard but they can atleast develop some ww2 jets or simple attack jets like super tucano (the first training jet that i think is important because of the capabilities)

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Would you be astonished, that analogue systems with plane individual glitches, complex fuel and oil pressure systems, usually are even more difficult to program/model realistically?

A digital HUD display and some LED numbers are much easier than modelling a gauge with a dampened needle that, to look realistic, requires multiple inputs processed and correlated to "work".

On the opposite a CDU program code telling you height is 5.783 ft, can simply give the digits to the MFDs and HUD and show them.

 

I know what you mean, but believe me, there are a lot more people interested in these trainers, than most of us think.

 

Just look at the aerobatics teams, as an example. Their prime time in DCS is flying formations and a, often in these trainers. As the real life aerobatics teams do. ;)

[Volator]

I like trainers, and not everybody joins this community as ace pilot, so there's definitely a need for them. With the shared cockpit feature they are very helpful for virtual squadrons in training rookies.

 

Love the L-39, the Hawk might evolve into a good product eventually, and I would welcome a T-38A (!) for DCS too.

[Coxy_99]

Agreed plus multi seat training feels more realistic then sit in your f15s and goo through the systems. Plus with SR hopefully soon to have the intercom switch will be good also.

[exray]

The lack of knowledge in this thread regarding the difficulties of creating one of these modules is staggering.. But whatever..

 

Below is a posting I made back in 2015 regarding the topic of trainers in DCS and I think it is still relevant..

 

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

 

I don't strongly disagree but a couple of counterpoints to consider that I made to someone considering the F5E as their first module.

 

First of all, within DCS there is no cost to operate or any real danger. It doesn't matter if your jet costs $30 million or $30 thousand or that flying something might be more "dangerous" than flying something else. In real life, this is a huge part of why trainers are important.

 

Training in DCS isn't like training in real life. There is no real instructor teaching you, watching you, correcting you (outside of some bog standard training missions) unless you have a mentor online, which not everyone has or wants. It can help at first to have some assistance.

 

Trainers (and the F5) lack some of the assisting systems like autopilot, moving maps, and a HUD that can make learning how to fly in DCS much much easier. As you get more proficient, you can take the crutches away.

 

I would say that it is far easier to learn to fly something like the M2000C than a trainer (in large part thanks to the wonderful campaign that teaches you essentially everything in an entertaining way) and that is a better learning tool.

 

Just food for thought.

[grunf]

I have two trainer modules, and will buy the third one at some point. I also have that helicopter that no one's ever heard about :P. And I do fly them all and enjoy them.

 

For me, DCS is not just about combat, it's about learning and using different systems and different procedures, and above all - flying. I do like to blow things up, but combat capabilities of an aircraft is the least important factor when I'm choosing whether I'll buy it or not.

 

 

Let the devs decide what modules they'll make, and hope that even the most obscure ones will find their customers among true aviation fans.

[AMEDooley]

So here's my take. I bought the Hawk cause I wanted a trainer that was simple to use to help me with the F-5E. I was so task saturated that I was having a hard time flying it and started to not enjoy my time flying it. I was so used to having a HUD that I was using it as a crutch so I wanted to break that habit. I actually don't like the Hawk in the current format. I use VR exclusively and I find the Pit to be very badly modeled. Now that could be due the actual Pit itself and it being modeled correctly and I'm used to the A-10C Pit. But the Pit feels cheaply done and ugly. Having said that, it greatly expanded my flying capabilities and techniques. It helped me become a better sim pilot and I still use it for those reasons. Which is what a trainer is meant to do, train you so when you go to a more complex and demanding platform you are not overwhelmed. Just because you don't enjoy them doesn't mean that they aren't enjoyed or found useful by others. If you want to jump into an F-5 and hate flying it for a while until you become proficient then go for it. That's your option. But others do find a usefulness to these planes so please don't get upset because dev's choose to give players the option to have trainers.

[some1]

Devs please, develope whatever you like, inspire, love and make you feel passion about.

 

Just don't come back crying that it does not sell well and you have no money to continue development. I don't have any sales data, but for example LSN Viggen generated twice as many forum posts in 2 weeks as C-101 in two years. That speaks something about where community interest is. And the Viggen is still a pretty exotic aircraft operated by one country in the world that didn't participate in any real conflict.

[NineLine]

Just don't come back crying that it does not sell well and you have no money to continue development. I don't have any sales data, but for example LSN Viggen generated twice as many forum posts in 2 weeks as C-101 in two years. That speaks something about where community interest is. And the Viggen is still a pretty exotic aircraft operated by one country in the world that didn't participate in any real conflict.

 

In the same sense though, how many people were like "A Viggen, why a Viggen, what is a Viggen?" :D

 

So I agree with people saying do what you want and people will buy it if its fun and good quality.