Collecting Signatures for ED to design piston aircraft for elementary flight trainer

[Zimmerdylan]

Once there is the Yak-52 in DCS OP will have his wish... the ability to train on Yak-52 and transition to L-39 before moving onto a main platform. The L-39 can be set to western avionics so saying we need a 'western' platform to train on doesn't really hold much weight as an argument.

 

I think this is a non-issue at this point... it's already coming to DCS.

 

That's kind of what I was thinking. I was confused as to why this thread was ever written. IMO.....with the Yak, we'll have a complete set of trainers.

[rajdary]

When ED finishes everything in the pipeline, then it wouldnt be a bad idea to add a Western trainer at a reasonable price. But we are talking about a few years for so many things to be finished and out of beta.

[TheBamse]

All my nopes!

[flyingdutchy]

Nein nein nein!

[Abburo]

Had to knock the dust off my forum account just to weigh in.

 

No

 

You shouldn't bother only for that.... !

[=DECOY=]

Sorry but its a NO from me, Im out!!!

[Spook]

I really don't think think this will divide the community, as long as we respect who flies what. bnOne day he comes home after a bad day on the set. He opens up DCS to take some recreation time, but he just doesn't feel like flying the Tomcat, or even fighting today. He decides he's going to fly a Cessna 172. He finds the controls are quite nice, and it's relaxing to fly over Las Vegas with his Oculus Rift, at a nice "cruising" speed of 140 knots, in contrast to the usual 700 in the Tomcat. He also finds it rather realistic, as this is a more common approach to aviation. Fighters don't fly over Las Vegas nearly as much as small GA aircraft do in real life. This gives our good friend Tom a feeling that he is doing something-flying a GA Cessna 172-that is closer to what he would do in real life, compared to flying a multimillion dollar F-14 "for the hell of it," which the air force would never allow him to do in real life. "This isn't so bad," says Tom, as he watches the Las Vegas traffic below.

Our beloved YouTuber AirForceProud95 has heard that general aviation aircraft have been introduced to DCS, and decides, "What the hell," and installs DCS, as well as buying the relatively cheap $14.99 Cessna 172. Once at the controls, he hits record, and begins his first impressions of the DCS: Cessna 172. Our friend AFP95 is immediately surprised by how beautiful the graphics are compared to FSX. Everything is down to the very last detail, from the paint chipped off the front dash, to the outside scenery, to the imperfections of the Cessna's airframe. "Holy Jesus!" he exclaims. "I need a tissue to clean all the jizz out of my eyeballs!" As he turns on the Cessna, AFP95 notices how interactable the cockpit is, and even has to close the door. The engine starts incredibly realistically, and sounds good too. Once in the air, our YouTube celebrity really feels how realistic the flight model is compared to a real Cessna, in contrast to FSX. He looks down, and the detail of Las Vegas is amazing! Never had he seen such detail in FSX. He praises the flight model, textures, map detail, and graphics! After half an hour of exploring the surrounding landscape, and comparing it to FSX, he comes in to land at McCarren International Airport, and butters the bread in his landing. The physics of landing impress him. He pulls in and parks his 172 at the terminal, just to make yet another comparison to FSX (Cessnas spawning at the terminal). With his final words, "DCS is worth it," he stops his recording, exits DCS, and edits the video. Once goofy captions are added, and removes the blank areas, be uploads to YouTube. Within a day after uploading, people who watch his video flock to DCS.

 

Love this paragraph ...

It's true, there will be a space in the future for everything in DCS

[javelina1]

Love this paragraph ...

It's true, there will be a space in the future for everything in DCS

 

buddy, you're persistent... I give you that! fight those windmills! ;)

[Kippy]

I'm totally for this, and allow me to present a few reasons why.

 

DCS has always prided itself on being the top of the line combat flight simulator. While I don't exactly agree with a recent announcement by a third party developer on their new module in development, I think they said one thing that is completely true. To paraphrase, "DCS is a very powerful flight simulator." It's abilities extend well beyond combat.

 

DCS has lured many virtual pilots in with promises of realism. These promises have certainly been delivered on, but DCS is certainly lacking in some regards. Subpar ATC, lacking a sufficient weather system, etc. I think DCS is lacking in one major regard: Training new pilots.

 

DCS in its current from simply hands you the aircraft, a few hundred pages of manuals relative to the aircraft you're flying, and the rest is up to you. While I have been an advocate for this "dive-straight-in" approach for a long time, there are simply many pilots who don't want this. They want their learning process to be small, digestible bites rather than a feast.

 

It is my understanding that a good portion of virtual pilots here at DCS have no affiliation to aviation in the real world. Thus, many of our virtual pilots here lack the fundamental basic understandings of aviation. I have taken virtual "students" in the L-39 before who could employ every weapon the A-10C carries with great effectiveness, but could not explain to me the function of an aircraft's flaps.

 

For virtual pilots that pride themselves on their realistic operations, that is unacceptable. How can we expect DCS to be an immersive environment when the pilots flying the aircraft don't even know how their plane is flying?

 

A small, propeller driven trainer such as a Cessna 152 would allow experienced pilots to meet what I see as their responsibility: teaching the fundamentals of aviation to new pilots.

 

I can already see many counterarguments as I'm typing this.

 

 

• 
   
  
• What about the Casual pilots of DCS who really don't feel the need to be professors in aeronautics to have fun?
  

 

That is the beauty of DCS! Everybody has the freedom of choice. You can conduct operations as realistically or as casually as you want. If you want to shoot down IL-76s with your A-10's rockets, you have the freedom to do that! But for a simulator priding itself on realism, many pilots are much more serious than that. Many pilots here are here to become proficient in their aircraft of choice and become mean, lean, virtual killing machines. With this group being what I perceive as a large group of DCS pilots, we have a responsibility to these guys and 'gals to ensure that they have a good time and are trained well to their wishes.

 

 

• We already have trainers that are better suited to DCS's combat aircraft. (L-39 and friends)
  

 

Yes, that is true. However, these trainers are not what I would put a fresh student pilot with a shiny new empty logbook in. These trainers represent the baby steps into the performance envelopes of fighter jets. Not ideal for learning the fundamentals of aviation. There are many reasons on why a prop driven, side by side seated aircraft would be a superior trainer for much less experienced pilots, but nothing truly paramount. This is honestly the "toughest" counterargument I can think of. While having put though into it, I still think there could be better trainers for newer, less experienced pilots.

 

 

• It would take time, money, and other resources away from the devlopment of other modules.
  

 

I suppose this is true as well, but a Cessna 152 or any small, propeller driven would be the least resource consuming module done to date - take that to the bank. Data on these aircraft is, of course, widely available. Magnitudes more than data for fighter jets I would think. These aircraft are also much less complex than modern fighter jets, and in my thought process at least, would require less actual development work than pretty much any other aircraft. The benefits of having this trainer around would far outweigh the minimal [relative to other aircraft] development expenses.

 

 

• Digital COMBAT Simulator.
  

 

The fundamentals of aviation still apply to combat aircraft. It is essential to learn these fundamentals.

 

 

• Well, I didn't have a prop driven single engine trainer when I started DCS and I did just fine.
  

 

You may very well have, but it's all about improvement. Any step we can make the colossal task of learning about aeronautics and how it factors into DCS easier for new pilots is a step we should take. It's all about drawing in new pilots and making their experience enjoyable and easy, so they will stick around DCS and buy other modules.. thus giving developers the money and consumer base they need to develop that F-15E or F-16C you're longing for.

 

Alright folks, I'm done rambling. That's just my two cents. Thank you for your time.

 

[Mars Exulte]

You already have one, the TF-51, a trainer version of the P-51. And it's free. And it's infinitely cooler than a Cessna.

 

*edit*

 

Oh, and a clan that tried to force me to work through a multi-aircraft "pipeline" to play a video game, would receive a resounding f o

In real life, they do that because if you crash, you die and destroy a multi-million dollar aircraft.

In the game, there is no reason to not simply go directly to the aircraft of your choice. If the systems are too complicated initially, you just focus on basic flight.

[Magic Zach]

You already have one, the TF-51, a trainer version of the P-51. And it's free. And it's infinitely cooler than a Cessna.

 

*edit*

 

Oh, and a clan that tried to force me to work through a multi-aircraft "pipeline" to play a video game, would receive a resounding f o

In real life, they do that because if you crash, you die and destroy a multi-million dollar aircraft.

In the game, there is no reason to not simply go directly to the aircraft of your choice. If the systems are too complicated initially, you just focus on basic flight.

Some people want to progress through DCS as they would through reality. You would never use a vintage Mustang as your training aircraft nowadays. A simple small trainer would fit better than that. Realism for realism's sake.

 

 

 

I'm totally for this, and allow me to present a few reasons why.

 

DCS has always prided itself on being the top of the line combat flight simulator. While I don't exactly agree with a recent announcement by a third party developer on their new module in development, I think they said one thing that is completely true. To paraphrase, "DCS is a very powerful flight simulator." It's abilities extend well beyond combat.

 

DCS has lured many virtual pilots in with promises of realism. These promises have certainly been delivered on, but DCS is certainly lacking in some regards. Subpar ATC, lacking a sufficient weather system, etc. I think DCS is lacking in one major regard: Training new pilots.

 

DCS in its current from simply hands you the aircraft, a few hundred pages of manuals relative to the aircraft you're flying, and the rest is up to you. While I have been an advocate for this "dive-straight-in" approach for a long time, there are simply many pilots who don't want this. They want their learning process to be small, digestible bites rather than a feast.

 

It is my understanding that a good portion of virtual pilots here at DCS have no affiliation to aviation in the real world. Thus, many of our virtual pilots here lack the fundamental basic understandings of aviation. I have taken virtual "students" in the L-39 before who could employ every weapon the A-10C carries with great effectiveness, but could not explain to me the function of an aircraft's flaps.

 

For virtual pilots that pride themselves on their realistic operations, that is unacceptable. How can we expect DCS to be an immersive environment when the pilots flying the aircraft don't even know how their plane is flying?

 

A small, propeller driven trainer such as a Cessna 152 would allow experienced pilots to meet what I see as their responsibility: teaching the fundamentals of aviation to new pilots.

 

I can already see many counterarguments as I'm typing this.

 

 

• 
   
  
• What about the Casual pilots of DCS who really don't feel the need to be professors in aeronautics to have fun?
  

 

That is the beauty of DCS! Everybody has the freedom of choice. You can conduct operations as realistically or as casually as you want. If you want to shoot down IL-76s with your A-10's rockets, you have the freedom to do that! But for a simulator priding itself on realism, many pilots are much more serious than that. Many pilots here are here to become proficient in their aircraft of choice and become mean, lean, virtual killing machines. With this group being what I perceive as a large group of DCS pilots, we have a responsibility to these guys and 'gals to ensure that they have a good time and are trained well to their wishes.

 

 

• We already have trainers that are better suited to DCS's combat aircraft. (L-39 and friends)
  

 

Yes, that is true. However, these trainers are not what I would put a fresh student pilot with a shiny new empty logbook in. These trainers represent the baby steps into the performance envelopes of fighter jets. Not ideal for learning the fundamentals of aviation. There are many reasons on why a prop driven, side by side seated aircraft would be a superior trainer for much less experienced pilots, but nothing truly paramount. This is honestly the "toughest" counterargument I can think of. While having put though into it, I still think there could be better trainers for newer, less experienced pilots.

 

 

• It would take time, money, and other resources away from the devlopment of other modules.
  

 

I suppose this is true as well, but a Cessna 152 or any small, propeller driven would be the least resource consuming module done to date - take that to the bank. Data on these aircraft is, of course, widely available. Magnitudes more than data for fighter jets I would think. These aircraft are also much less complex than modern fighter jets, and in my thought process at least, would require less actual development work than pretty much any other aircraft. The benefits of having this trainer around would far outweigh the minimal [relative to other aircraft] development expenses.

 

 

• Digital COMBAT Simulator.
  

 

The fundamentals of aviation still apply to combat aircraft. It is essential to learn these fundamentals.

 

 

• Well, I didn't have a prop driven single engine trainer when I started DCS and I did just fine.
  

 

You may very well have, but it's all about improvement. Any step we can make the colossal task of learning about aeronautics and how it factors into DCS easier for new pilots is a step we should take. It's all about drawing in new pilots and making their experience enjoyable and easy, so they will stick around DCS and buy other modules.. thus giving developers the money and consumer base they need to develop that F-15E or F-16C you're longing for.

 

Alright folks, I'm done rambling. That's just my two cents. Thank you for your time.

 

 

Beautifully written, Kip.

[msalama]

This thread is BS. The devs develop what they think commercially viable, and us the great unwashed purchase what we find desirable. /thread

[Kippy]

This thread is BS. The devs develop what they think commercially viable, and us the great unwashed purchase what we find desirable. /thread

Why even browse the wishlist then?

 

You're statement is entirely correct, but threads like these expressing majority interest or in this thread's case, disinterest, give developers some input from the community on what the community would and wouldn't like to see.

 

Remember the basis of any decision making process. Observation. The more threads like these developers can observe, the more information a developer has on a potential community response to a module they are thinking of developing.

 

While I'd like to see a trainer such as the C152 in the game, it seems obvious the majority of DCS users don't care for it. And thanks to this thread and threads like it, and to the threads and posts in response to M3's CEII announcement for example, 3rd party developers now may reconsider developing a module that they now know would be unpopular. and the DCS community is heard. It's a win for the community and for the developers.

 

These posts don't hurt anybody, quite the opposite I'd say, so there's no need say /thread quite yet.

[Quadg]

the progression in combat flight sims is the opposite to real life.

 

only now I'm bored of blowing stuff up am i getting interested in landing properly :)

[Backy 51]

The USAF went for decades successfully training in an all jet aircraft environment with the T-37 and T-38 trainers. I see no reason to waste developer time and resources developing civilian prop planes or trainers for DCS. I include the T-6 with this category. Learn to fly the Hawk, L-39 or F-5 if you need basic flight training.

 

 

IMHO, we are in desperate need of additional and larger areas to fly. Scenery/terrain development should take priority over any additional efforts on civilian prop aircraft. It is after all, Digital COMBAT Simulator ...

[cordite]

As long as it was an armed T6 Texan II, then not a waste of time at all.

[Sydy]

Nooooo

[dolfo]

... we are in desperate need of additional and larger areas to fly. Scenery/terrain development should take priority ...

 

+1

[DieHard]

(re: top of thread Message #1)

 

NO!

 

-+-

 

Already has been done!

 

Don't waste your time here with DCS.

 

Go with these guys and the platform they use and their training progression:

 

http://vcw-8.com

 

https://www.prepar3d.com/vehicles/

 

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1BOHD_enUS487US526&ei=fhM2Wu_vGsLnmAHz3o7gAg&q=Lockheed+Martin%27s+Prepar3d+carrier+practice&oq=Lockheed+Martin%27s+Prepar3d+carrier+practice&gs_l=psy-ab.12...175839.178618.0.181821.21.13.0.0.0.0.176.1220.7j5.12.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..14.0.0....0.VnjILnzkg8U

Edited December 17, 2017 by DieHard

[Spook]

I'm totally for this, and allow me to present a few reasons why.

 

They want their learning process to be small, digestible bites rather than a feast.

 

It is my understanding that a good portion of virtual pilots here at DCS have no affiliation to aviation in the real world. Thus, many of our virtual pilots here lack the fundamental basic understandings of aviation. I have taken virtual "students" in the L-39 before who could employ every weapon the A-10C carries with great effectiveness, but could not explain to me the function of an aircraft's flaps.

 

For virtual pilots that pride themselves on their realistic operations, that is unacceptable. How can we expect DCS to be an immersive environment when the pilots flying the aircraft don't even know how their plane is flying?

 

A small, propeller driven trainer such as a Cessna 152 would allow experienced pilots to meet what I see as their responsibility: teaching the fundamentals of aviation to new pilots.

Kippy If you had started this publication and not me, I would have had more votes in favor. Well, you make it very clear which is the main idea, with which I initiate this proposal.

It is a great analysis and I would say the best on this subject.

 

We are already close to 150 responses, and the result is that a large percentage said no, without understanding the background of the problem.

It is to look for an elementary training plane, that is piston, of exclusive use of military training to instruct the pilots in a learning pipeline. (not for civil flights, and go from point a to b on tour and photography flights, that's not what I'm looking for).

[Bearfoot]

Kippy If you had started this publication and not me, I would have had more votes in favor. Well, you make it very clear which is the main idea, with which I initiate this proposal.

It is a great analysis and I would say the best on this subject.

 

We are already close to 150 responses, and the result is that a large percentage said no, without understanding the background of the problem.

It is to look for an elementary training plane, that is piston, of exclusive use of military training to instruct the pilots in a learning pipeline. (not for civil flights, and go from point a to b on tour and photography flights, that's not what I'm looking for).

 

Nope. That's not it. I actually think everyone understood EXACTLY what you were saying, and Kippy's clarification, great as it was, does not change the picture ;)

 

We get the argument.

 

We just don't buy it.

 

You can teach the fundamentals of aviation in a virtual world in an A-10C as well as any other "trainer" bird. It is really an easy aircraft to fly (as in actually aviate in, rather than fight). One of the easiest, I think: very forgiving and great recovery characteristics. The reason they don't put a student in the seat of an A-10 (or an F-15 or a Su-25 etc.) on day one in RL is because it would be a very expensive trainer bird, both in terms of numbers to make available for training as well as if accidents happen. In a simulator, that is not an issue. Even if the DCS jet a/c are more dangerous to learn to fly in than the type of a/c you are describing, they are still a good enough a/c to learn flying in a simulator because there is no cost to crashing/dying and trying again.

 

And, of course, in the simulator world, the cheap/no-cost-learning-curve arguments would apply to any a/c, so might as well learn the fundamentals of flight in the a/c you plan to use anyway, even if it is as twitchy as the Spitfire or the Harrier!

 

As you can guess, my answer to your question is a pretty solid "no" :)

 

I honestly do not see why any other a/c would be easier/better to learn the fundamentals of flying in than any of the pickings we have, for the reason I describe above, AND since there is no cost I think I would rather learn on the a/c I plan to fly anyway.

[Magic Zach]

I'd go with a trainer, but I'd be very picky. I think the Texan II would be the best choice for a western trainer. Unless there are better (not T-38 Talon, it's too much like the F-5E). After the Yak-52 and a T-6 (if say we got one) I think DCS would have enough trainers. I'm all for the aerobatics in DCS. The flight models are top notch, and shouldn't be limited purely for military aircraft. Civilian aircraft can be allowed as well. In which case, I'm happy we are getting a CE2. It will be an instant buy for me, and I have my fingers crossed that there will one day be a DCS-quality Edge 540.

[Kal-El]

No more trainers please.

[msalama]

Trainers are fine when they can be (and IRL are) used as light CAS / COIN birds, e.g. L-39, and the Yak-52 is an exciting bird because it has a radial powerplant. The first I've had since the beginning, and the second I'll buy immediately after release. But how many trainers do you need? That's the salient question.

 

However, if the trainers prove popular, then by all means make more. Supply the demand and make a buck, no ;)

[Spook]

msalama The Yak-52 is a Russian airplane with cabin in Russian language, what I ask in this publication is, to have a cabin in English language, a western aircraft as already planned with the Grob Tutor.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Spook