Dev's please stop developing trainer jets

[OnlyforDCS]

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.

 

On the other hand LN already made the iconic Mig21, one of the best modules for DCS, and the first full fidelity supersonic plane. Not to mention Wagg's great preview videos which showcased the Viggen perfectly, and the fact that it makes for a great interdiction plane. Something that was sorely missing in DCS.

 

Leatherneck is a success story in DCS and deservingly so.

[Coxy_99]

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.

 

 

Me now i love it lol

[shab249]

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.

I was like that when i heard it few months ago but now it seems really cool (still prefer the F-4 but ok)

*crying in phantom*

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[agrasyuk]

"stop building trainers".

OP , did it ever occur to you that a 3rd party Dev might not possess the capacity to produce a complex aircraft? even if the technical skill and knowledge is suddenly there out of the blue the finances are quite not trivial. are you asking programmers to work without pay for several years in hope of possible (but not guaranteed) future sales?

they build what they can and what they interested in.

[some1]

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.

 

So why L-39 forum is much smaller than the Viggen? Poor quality or not fun? Fewer people bought it or just nothing to discuss?

 

BTW, imagine what would happen if instead of a Viggen we got F-14, F-16 or F-18. Well, we'll know soon enough with the Hornet release (I hope :P)

 

On the other hand LN already made the iconic Mig21, one of the best modules for DCS, and the first full fidelity supersonic plane

 

Actually, I've read posts by people holding with Viggen purchase because of the state the MiG-21 is currently in. It's not all wine and roses.

 

"stop building trainers".

OP , did it ever occur to you that a 3rd party Dev might not possess the capacity to produce a complex aircraft?

 

A trainer is not trivial, because of the added complexity of the second cockpit, esp. with shared cockpit functionality. The easiest choice for a new dev would be one of the early jets from the '50s: single cockpit, subsonic, no guided weapons and simple avionics.

Edited February 9, 2017 by some1

[Fri13]

I agree that it is IMHO useless to buy trainers for training in simulator to fly other modules. I own two, hawk and L-39 and wouldn't got those if price wouldn't been low.

 

But.... I totally get the trainers of those for military and civilian purposes who fly those!

So they have their trainer simulated and they can fly virtually without flying some military aircraft or so.

L-39 is most popular jet trainer in USA, so there is market among real pilots to simulate closest aircraft you can get if wanted a jet.

 

But I don't get at all this dual-seat thing requiring a second license. Like really, put the trainee seat as free/open and require license from trainer seat so we can take friends up in the air without requiring them to buy a module....

[NineLine]

So why L-39 forum is much smaller than the Viggen? Poor quality or not fun? Fewer people bought it or just nothing to discuss?

 

BTW, imagine what would happen if instead of a Viggen we got F-14, F-16 or F-18. Well, we'll know soon enough with the Hornet release (I hope :P)

 

 

 

Actually, I've read posts by people holding with Viggen purchase because of the state the MiG-21 is currently in. It's not all wine and roses.

 

The L-39 was something ED had been sitting on for a long time, they saw it as an opportunity as a test bed for a Multiplayer cockpit, so in this case, it gives us a new aircraft, but also ED a way to develop something new.

 

The L-39 neither slowed or sped up development on the Hornet, so would you rather have a world without new planes during the time of Hornet development or would you rather it was dry that whole time.

 

The L-39 popularity might be lower because there is just as not much to do with it as the Viggen, that doesnt mean it doesnt have a place in DCS. Forums are only so good for measuring such things as well, as I understood it, the L-39 was a very good seller for ED.

[Fri13]

So why L-39 forum is much smaller than the Viggen? Poor quality or not fun? Fewer people bought it or just nothing to discuss?

 

It is because trainers don't offer anything at the moment for DCS, but those work as simulators for real trainers.

Actually, I've read posts by people holding with Viggen purchase because of the state the MiG-21 is currently in. It's not all wine and roses.

 

I stopped flying Mig-21 because it has got so radical FM changes that can't take it as I don't know is it bugged now or not.

Can't do any fast rolling like on videos and sometimes just feels it is under heavy development continually.

Hope that viggen doesn't go to same, as it would be sad. Now it is nice to fly but feels still missing a lot.

[Schwarzfeld]

Just for the record, as a licensed pilot IRL, I find the L-39 to be one of the most enjoyable acft to fly in DCS, period - prop or jet.

 

If you feel trainers are worthless in DCS, you are not much of a pilot. Often times these trainers (prop or jet) have a great deal to teach in terms of general airmanship - flying the L-39 will teach you almost everything you need to know, short of tailwheel handling. In terms of ACTUAL flying, not SkyQuake™ shoot em up.

[Sweep]

I really feel like the problem here is that we have a bunch of low performance trainers. Training aircraft are fine, but when you're trying to do IFF stuff in an L-39C...Oh look I'm down to 195kts at 13,000ft in a rate fight!

 

I'd say one of these would work: Higher performance trainer (e.g. T-38A/B/C), training variant of a fighter (e.g. Su-27UB), or add an extra slot with the same viewpoint on an existing or developing fighter. Last one is a bit easier from certain PoVs, but I suppose recoding an existing A/C would be a pain in the rear. You know how L-39 has the ability to disable the backseat through the ME? Well, a fake second slot could have that too...

 

/ideas

[Guitrz]

I personally love the L-39s, both versions. One of my favorite planes.

People who like WWII want WWII planes, people who like helicopters want more helicopters, and the thick few that play BVR airquake exclusively still want an F-22.

 

 

I believe people should just let the developers develop (duh.) whichever modules they find doable. Eventually we'll get that one module we've been waiting for, except it will be more skillfully done and have less issues and letdowns. :)

[Schwarzfeld]

If you cannot train IFR in a low performance trainer, you cannot qualify IFR in a high performance acft.

 

With regard to IFR, the simulation makes life easier than it actually is in the real acft, so check your ego at the door, gentlemen.

[Teldja]

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

 

 

Well, it is just that, your opinion and only that.

Hopefully, we all have our own opinion, desire and dislike.

 

So... Well, thank you for sharing your opinion but really I wonder how the hell you can assume the developers are "wasting" their time developing something you don't like.

 

Aircraft diversity in DCS is never a bad thing to my opinion. That doesn't mean someone is wasting his time thinking otherwise or doing something I am not happy with. Others may enjoy what I don't like.

 

Please developers, keep up the good work!

 

Cheers.

[myHelljumper]

Devs please keep developing what you want for DCS.

[Sweep]

If you cannot train IFR in a low performance trainer, you cannot qualify IFR in a high performance acft.

 

With regard to IFR, the simulation makes life easier than it actually is in the real acft, so check your ego at the door, gentlemen.

 

Kinda curious here...Who mentioned IFR flying?

 

I'd think that'd be one of the more useful things for a current trainer to do...

[some1]

The L-39 was something ED had been sitting on for a long time, they saw it as an opportunity as a test bed for a Multiplayer cockpit, so in this case, it gives us a new aircraft, but also ED a way to develop something new.

 

The L-39 neither slowed or sped up development on the Hornet, so would you rather have a world without new planes during the time of Hornet development or would you rather it was dry that whole time.

 

The L-39 popularity might be lower because there is just as not much to do with it as the Viggen, that doesnt mean it doesnt have a place in DCS. Forums are only so good for measuring such things as well, as I understood it, the L-39 was a very good seller for ED.

 

Sigh, missed my point. This is not a Hornet vs. L-39 argument, I'm just pointing out that aircraft popularity in real life and it's usefulness in DCS enviroment has a big effect on the sales. Of course a dev can, as you said, "do what he wants" (as long as it is not a MiG-23 :P), and for ED it might have been a relatively low effort to build an L-39, but given two aircraft of similar complexity, the one that is more "iconic" will generate more sales. Especially as the DCS World becomes more crowded and people start to have more interesting addons to pick from. So making a trainer, or an obscure, relatively unknown aircraft may not be a best idea, even if a developer for some reason loves the type.

 

If you feel trainers are worthless in DCS, you are not much of a pilot. Often times these trainers (prop or jet) have a great deal to teach in terms of general airmanship - flying the L-39 will teach you almost everything you need to know, short of tailwheel handling.

 

Oh, so please tell me, if I already have F-86 or F-5 in DCS, what would a jet trainer teach me in terms of airmanship? We're back to the discussion about the role of the trainers in real life (low cost to buy and operate), vs their role in the sim (mostly as curiosity).

Edited February 9, 2017 by some1

[Schwarzfeld]

Kinda curious here...Who mentioned IFR flying?

 

I'd think that'd be one of the more useful things for a current trainer to do...

 

My bad, may have been looking at one thread and replying to another.

 

Perennially, one of the greatest strengths of the PC flight sim is IFR training, with the US FAA offering qualified loggable hours at home on MS FSX for specific acft with specific peripherals.

 

You are right, that is one of the more useful things that a trainer can do, specifically any PC simulation - the sim offers often better IFR training than the real thing, with regard to learning good habits, scan the T etc etc.

[NineLine]

Sigh, missed my point. This is not a Hornet vs. L-39 argument,

 

 

Never said it was an L-39 vs Hornet thing, so I am not sure I am the one that missed the point. The point is that the 'iconic' aircraft generally are going to take more time to develop, if they can sneak in some less complex aircraft here and there, and it helps develop things like MP cockpits, then by all means do it.

 

As I said, forum posts dont mean as much as you might think. These trainers, the L-39 do just fine in sales. Of course a F/A-18 or F-16 would do much better, but they would have greater development times, its simply that.

 

And finally, lets be honest, if they can get a couple less complex aircraft out to earn a few dollars to keep the lights on, then yes, do it, so we can get to the iconic aircraft.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Every time a thread complaining about trainers is made, an angel gets its wings.

[kontiuka]

Every time a thread complaining about trainers is made, an angel gets its wings.

or a demon gets its horns:evil:

[Erdem]

This is how I feel ever since we've gotten the A-10. The WWII stuff, the trainer stuff are all very niche and feel like unnecessary diversions for ED. I understand the third party trying to get a foothold with simpler aircraft, but ED has been puzzling me.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

or a demon gets its horns:evil:

 

Or both!

 

 

This is how I feel ever since we've gotten the A-10. The WWII stuff, the trainer stuff are all very niche and feel like unnecessary diversions for ED. I understand the third party trying to get a foothold with simpler aircraft, but ED has been puzzling me.

The WWII content is done by its own team.

 

And they wouldn't be making it if it didn't sell. WWII is hardly niche; it's easily the most popular setting for combat sims. And, ED has also stated that DCS is not limited to any time period or theatre.

[rrohde]

[...]to earn a few dollars *to keep the lights on* [...]

 

Let's hope it never comes down to this!

[Guitrz]

Let's hope it never comes down to this!

 

It potentially would have, considering the development time of the F/A-18C, if they hadn't done the "unnecessary" diversions in the meantime. But what do I know. :)

[some1]

Never said it was an L-39 vs Hornet thing, so I am not sure I am the one that missed the point. The point is that the 'iconic' aircraft generally are going to take more time to develop.

As I said, forum posts dont mean as much as you might think. These trainers, the L-39 do just fine in sales. Of course a F/A-18 or F-16 would do much better, but they would have greater development times, its simply that.

 

And finally, lets be honest, if they can get a couple less complex aircraft out to earn a few dollars to keep the lights on, then yes, do it, so we can get to the iconic aircraft.

 

No one said that iconic automatically means 4th gen multirole either. Plenty of less complex Korean/Vietnam era jets, WWII icons, and so on.

 

And ESPECIALLY if you struggle to keep the lights on, you aim to maximize the profit from your efforts, not just make an obscure unknown plane because you like it. For the record, I'm not talking now about L-39, that might have been a reasonable choice in ED situation.

 

You are right, that is one of the more useful things that a trainer can do, specifically any PC simulation - the sim offers often better IFR training than the real thing, with regard to learning good habits, scan the T etc etc.

 

Except in DCS there's not much IFR you can do with those trainers. Hawk has constant problems with broken radios, avionics and lighting. L-39 is limited to a few airports on the Black Sea map that have the proper navaids, on the Nevada and other upcoming maps it's going to be VFR only. C-101 should be pretty usable, but SFM only.