Dev's please stop developing trainer jets

[NineLine]

Dont get me wrong , i still fly hawk and its one my favorite planes in real life (maybe because our air force uses them) but same time im frustrated that its still so far from quality that dcs usually delivers.

 

Hawk 3D model is awesome , maybe thats one reason why its feels so bad that inside its so unfinished.

 

My English is bit limited , so my critic may sound Harsh sometimes.

 

Small jets are my personal intrest, maybe some day we get A-4 skyhawk :)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Many people are disappointed in how its come about, and I can almost say 100% that VEAO has been disappointed more than anyone, I am not saying that excuses any issues, but they are making efforts that you can see, and anyone that enjoys the Hawk, or looks forward to it being polished up can agree that's better than it being abandoned.

 

I think we all want to see the succeed, so we all just need to cut them a little more slack, I think in the end we will have a strong 3rd Party team come out of it, then they can get on that damn Lancaster :D

[shagrat]

(...) There are so many awesome combat aircraft that could and should be developed.

Then go ahead, get the necessary data, a License agreement with the manufacturer (or IP holder) and apply for a 3rd party contract with ED!

 

I've argued for a long time the point of developing aircraft towards specific scenarios ie.

And nearly all devs clearly stated they will do, what is possible in terms of

 

- data and performance charts

- is not putting them into jail for breach of NDAs or confidential/military secrets

- they can get a license for

- have the people to do it

- they personally like to do and are passionate about

 

despite your arguments.

 

Harsh reality is, nobody on the customer side is in the positon to tell the military what aircraft they have to clear for simulation businesses. :huh:

 

We need proper balance, esp in online warfare. For so long we had online missions which included P-51Ds, Hueys and training a/c. Eh?

That has been discussed a hundred times already. DCS focus on REALISTIC air combat. No, conflict ever, has been about "balance", "fairness" or "sports"!

 

If you want "balanced gameplay" play a game (War Thunder, Battlefield, etc.)

 

DCS provides realistically modeled aircraft and a sandbox environment.

 

It is the job of mission designers to "balance" the mission.

[gavagai]

 

Harsh reality is, nobody on the customer side is in the positon to tell the military what aircraft they have to clear for simulation businesses. :huh:

 

 

I know VEAO is doing that for the Typhoon, but not every module we have has clearance from its native military.

[FragBum]

Well actually I'd be happy to pay money for a Robinson R44(Cadet) model that would be fine for learning Helicopter flight.

 

Plus there fun to fly, even with ~200 odd HP I know, I gave one a go just this last weekend. (I might even go back for more, now let me see what else can I sell.) :thumbup:

 

I think the whole argument for including this and angst at devs for not including "insert your aircraft here" is possibly somewhat disingenuous to the devs for their efforts.

 

I'm kinda of the opinion if the devs make something you like buy it if you don't like it don't buy it, maybe ask for what you want sure but if it doesn't come don't be critical of the devs for not making exactly what you want. They need to develop stuff that has a broader appeal after all they need to eat as well. :)

 

 

Oh please Santa can I have like a voucher for like 20 hours of lessons ha please,.. :P

[shagrat]

I know VEAO is doing that for the Typhoon, but not every module we have has clearance from its native military.

No, but that is just one hurdle on the way, plenty others.

And the biggest issue, from it seems to me is the intellectual property stuff. Get a licence by the manufacturer/IP holder.

 

As usually foreign countries ask for "licensed use" of the construction to actually build the airplane, there is a problem to simply negotiate on eye level... That is another story, though.

 

Fact remains it is not like just to decide you want to make aircraft A or aircraft B for DCS and start programming. There is a lot(!) more involved. ;)

[kontiuka]

alternatively the Korean era jets are also pretty simple to start up and get itno the air, Particularly the F86, and while old, the sabre still has higher performance than than any of the current trainers, whilst still being combat capable, It could still fill COIN, in a post korean scenario.

 

as for the m2000 you dont need wait 8 minutes for INS alignment, if you just really want to fly around for fun. you can still use ILS or TACAN frequencies.

Nothing against the Sabre. I fly it quite a bit too. But what I prefer about the C-101 is that it is "modern", i.e. nav systems, ILS, etc. Plus the dual seat is nice.

 

I own the M2000C as well and enjoy it but to me, if I'm going to use it, I want to use it properly which means firing up all the systems and doing the proper alignment. To each his own.

[CHDT]

In the end, vote with your money.

My money quietly waits for F-100, F-104, F-105, F-4 etc...

So if a dev team wants my money (and I'm probably not alone)...

[CHDT]

"DCS focus on REALISTIC air combat."

 

Ahem, try to find an online server without an arcadish planeset, they existe, but they are pretty rare !

Edited February 13, 2017 by CHDT

[Coxy_99]

"DCS focus on REALISTIC air combat."

 

Ahem, try to find an online server without an arcadish planeset !

 

What would you call realistic tho? Or non realistic?

[OnlyforDCS]

As for that other "civilian" sim, no way in hell is it anywhere even near close to the fidelity of the flight models and systems that DCS is.

 

So, no thank you! I will NOT go back to flying an inferior sim just because someone else thinks that shooting things is the thing that defines DCS. (HINT: It's the "S" part of DCS.)

 

P.S. I do enjoy the combat part of DCS too. But primarily I enjoy the flight modeling.

[shagrat]

What would you call realistic tho? Or non realistic?

Simulate aircraft and environments so they behave like in real life as much as technical restrictions and legal stuff allows.

Mission design is what the community dies on the servers. If the majority is hosting Air-quake you should ask the host to "balance" his mission.

 

There are two ways to have fun with that.

Either embrace a challenge or use superior numbers and tactics against "better" opponents.

I've read somewhere the MiG-21 GCI was supposed to happen with a 1 vs 4 or higher ratio. That is 4 MiG-21 against 1 "superior" attacker... So a flight of 2 F-15C should face at least 4-8 MiG-21 with GCI Radar lighting them up.

 

That would be realistic and not balanced, as well...

 

A major issue is, that most servers allow the most modern weapons, against older jets like the F-5E or MiG-21, while a more balanced scenario of the 1970ies should have AIM-7 and old Sidewinders for the F-15C and no R-27 ER for the Su-27...

 

But as I said this has to be managed by the server host/mission designer.

 

To call for "balanced" planes is actually funny, as I do not know of two planes who have absolutely similar and fair characteristics, weapons and quirks. :dunno:

[rrohde]

P.S. I do enjoy the combat part of DCS too. But primarily I enjoy the flight modeling.

 

+1 :thumbup:

[NineLine]

Ok guys, I think the end of this story is some people like trainers and some dont, those that do will buy them, those that done wont.