Dev's please stop developing trainer jets

[NineLine]

Complexity isn't restricted to modern fighters either. Bottom line is that these 3rd parties and ED have to decide what is best for them to keep going, we may not always agree with it, but its their livelihood, so they need to live with whatever they decide.

[some1]

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.

 

Except DCS is not a perfect platform for a WWII simulator and it's obvious that it costs ED a lot of effort and delays to make it into one. It's also the area where there is the most competition from other titles. I hope they'll succeed, but I have some doubts. Anyway, that's completely different topic.

Edited February 9, 2017 by some1

[some1]

Bottom line is that these 3rd parties and ED have to decide what is best for them to keep going, we may not always agree with it, but its their livelihood, so they need to live with whatever they decide.

 

And that's exactly what I meant in the first post here (https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3045246&postcount=49) so it's good that we agree in the end.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Except DCS is not a perfect platform for a WWII simulator and it's obvious that it costs ED a lot of effort and delays to make it into one. It's also the area where there is the most competition from other titles. I hope they'll succeed, but I have some doubts. Anyway, that's completely different topic.

 

Again. Different team. This is a team they lifted from RRG Studios. Delays would still occur even of the RRG guys were still separate.

 

As for any limitations in engine, everything is subject to change™.

[NineLine]

Again. Different team. This is a team they lifted from RRG Studios. Delays would still occur even of the RRG guys were still separate.

 

As for any limitations in engine, everything is subject to change™.

 

Yes, we need to remember that the WWII team rarely impacts the other parts of ED. SO using that as an excuse for delays is not valid.

[some1]

RRG is still on ED's payroll, so they use up resources that could be spent elsewhere. Overcoming the engine limitations also required ED work, I doubt RRG is left to do with the DCS engine as they please. So I don't see how this can be considered "no impact". Besides, if those teams are really separate, then why we have to wait for Normandy release to get 2.5 and Caucasus update? From the newsletter I get the impression there's only one "map team":

Once the Nevada update and the Normandy map tasks are complete, our map team can return to the Caucuses map and move the 2.5 closer to an Open Beta release.

 

But as I said, you're going off topic guys ;)

Edited February 9, 2017 by some1

[probad]

if you want to direct a company you can go make your own

[NineLine]

RRG is still on ED's payroll, so they use up resources that could be spent elsewhere. Overcoming the engine limitations also required ED work, I doubt RRG is left to do with the DCS engine as they please. So I don't see how this can be considered "no impact". Besides, if those teams are really separate, then why we have to wait for Normandy release to get 2.5 and Caucasus update? From the newsletter I get the impression there's only one "map team":

 

 

But as I said, you're going off topic guys ;)

 

RRG is gone, they might have some people from RRG, they also have some people from IL2, and other places. But its a team that focuses on that product. Normandy is being made by an outside team, the ability to get the map working in DCS does fall on ED, and its a stumbling point as they work on getting the versions merged, but the building and creation of Normandy was the WWII team and not the same team behind NTTR and SoH.

[shagrat]

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?

Maybe it is just perfect with no bugs to rant about? ;)

 

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.

Nothing ever was in DCS. It comes with the complexity and simulation depth.

I personally think even the supposed "crappiest" beta is usually better than many major companies "Christmas release titles". :dunno:

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.

To learn the ropes for dual cockpit and Multiplayer input synchronisation it is a pretty logical step to start with a two-seater trainer aircraft. Same goes for developing supersonic external flight models.

You can be sure third parties think a lot about their business decisions before starting a venture. Like any other business does... : smartass:

Edited February 9, 2017 by shagrat

[shagrat]

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.

Ahem, so you now have access to all the sales figures, or you just extrapolate your personal preferences?

I remember what people said when the MiG-21 was announced and it was about how "not iconic", "unknown", "useless" it was, and that "nobody wants/would buy" an old russian fighter...

I guess the MiG-21 sold quite ok, for such expectations, from a few guys that simply didn't know what they were talking about.

 

What is your guess for an "iconic" jet in the UK? Sepecat Jaguar? A Lightning? A Harrier Gr. 7? Eurofighter Typhoon or an F-35? A Tornado? Or an F-16, F-18 or F-4?

 

In Germany? An F-104? A Tornado? F-4 Phantom? Or the late MiG-29 G or a MiG-21 if it comes to people from east Germany?

 

What about other countries? What do they see as an "iconic" plane?

 

...and then, there is even personal taste to consider for each if us.

So in general we will find that virtually any plane will sell well enough, as there will be people buying it because they love it, others as they want to try it, some to just support the devs, and others may get it as a present and learn to love it. :D

[tintifaxl]

That's easy: for Western Block the F-16, for Eastern Block the SU-27. Add a modern Korea map and we are good to go :lol:

[tintifaxl]

Maybe it is just perfect with no bugs to rant about? ;)

 

Sadly not. There's a nice bug list in the L-39 subforum.

[shagrat]

That's easy: for Western Block the F-16, for Eastern Block the SU-27. Add a modern Korea map and we are good to go

For me definitely the EF Typhoon or a Tornado, maybe a Jaguar. Eastern Block I'd go for the MiG-29 any time or a MiG-23 as we already have the MiG-21... ;)

[Goblin]

No more trainers..?

Nonsense! Gimme a Tiger Moth to go with the WWII theme! I'm serious!

[NineLine]

No more trainers..?

Nonsense! Gimme a Tiger Moth to go with the WWII theme! I'm serious!

 

I would love a WWII trainer :)

[shagrat]

I would love a WWII trainer :)

I won't care if it is WW II or not, but the Tiger Moth or a Fieseler Storch(!) would be "iconic" AND a fun plane to fly! :)

[Gladman]

Personally, I'd like a Harvard II and a Hawk 100 but thats just my Canadian bias speaking :)

[Donut]

I would love a WWII trainer :)

 

Yes! A Boeing Stearman would be incredibly fun to fly!

[Bersagliere81]

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?

 

Inb4thelock!

 

I mean, I own the Hawk, and I am considering to buy the L-39. Sometimes I like the challenge they offer in multiplayer for when I get bored of thye A10c and Mig21

[wilbur81]

Sometimes I like the challenge they offer in multiplayer:

 

The challenge of running from other players that are in actual fighters when you're in a trainer?

[GeorgeLKMT]

I don't get this, there is exactly ONE dedicated trainer in DCS: TF-51D. And it's free. The rest of the planes which are used for training are perfectly capable of combat, so what's the issue? Because there's no afterburner? Or radar? Or smart weaponry? Or fancy countermeasures? Well, the WWII modules or Sabre or Fagot doesn't have that either and they're still fun. It's just a different type of flying and the planes are fit for different scenarios.

[Buzzles]

Surprised this thread hasn't fallen foul of Rule 1.14 yet, considering the OP is having a rant, not offering a discussion piece.

 

To Op:

1) No-one is currently making trainers as far as is publically announced. That alone renders your post pointless.

2) Trainers have their place, especially to V A squads and people who are into super-realism. Bonus fact is so far all the trainer modules are either dual role or the light attack version is/going to be available alongside.

3) Some people really like them (I don't), so why do you think your wishlist of planes is more important than theirs?

Edited February 9, 2017 by Buzzles

[flanker1]

i want to see mig-23 and mig-23ub please! :-)

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Personally, I'd like a Harvard II and a Hawk 100 but thats just my Canadian bias speaking :)

 

Kill two birds with one stone: Go with the Wolverine, so you can have the dual controls for trainer work and of course the actual COIN abilities.

 

i want to see mig-23 and mig-23ub please! :-)

 

Everyone gets a fighter AND a trainer, a win win!

[NineLine]

I won't care if it is WW II or not, but the Tiger Moth or a Fieseler Storch(!) would be "iconic" AND a fun plane to fly! :)

 

Dont get me started on the Storch :)