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

[Buzzles]

Yes, because I want pilotable light GA in the sim for COIN VS Drug Runner missions, based on events that have happened in South America.

 

Ie, there's nothing to say the GA planes that could get added to DCS are going to be bullet proof :)

[cichlidfan]

Ie, there's nothing to say the GA planes that could get added to DCS are going to be bullet proof :)

 

I don't know about that. A lot of the current AI aircraft seem fairly resistant to .50 cal ammo.

[firmek]

...

I am very sure that many people do not even know how to perform a basic pattern landing or military pattern or a low visibility ILS approach.

...

I am an aviation ex-military with 20 years of experience and I have been a flight crew member and I know how to do all these procedures, but when I use the simulator with other people, it is difficult for me to understand how there are people who fly an aircraft and do not know how to do it, they just want to shoot and they do not even know how to shoot or they get frustrated.

...

But if it is clear to me (as some have already said) that DCS is missing a "WESTERN TRAINER PLANE" for "elementary flight", to at least learn to land and not enter the simulator and try to land a brick like the Su -25T, (it's a good plane, but you need a lot of experience) for example.

 

First I have to apologize for my previous post. I did read your post rather quickly and it looks like I didn't get the real intention, perceiving it too much from the perspective of recent, another discussions :doh:

 

I think that your point is generally reflecting my experience with DCS. I started with A-10C. As it was the first, fully clickable module I had a blast learning the systems. After that I pretty much jumped into navigation and weapons employment. It wasn't necessarily my choice. As quite new to DCS I had followed the structure of the training missions attached with the module. Just after that I flew the campaign. In other words I knew how to operate A-10 systems, fly it, use weapons but didn't had any clue about the tactics, VFR or IFR rules. Heck I didn't know that there is something like an active runway or that there are other types of approaches than just a long straight in (I was landing the A-10 like an 747)

Next I got few other modules, including MiG-21 which actually showed me that I don't know how to fly. Just by taking away the HUD I was totally lost. I had to learn how to make an coordinated turn, how to properly navigate using nav aids, etc.. etc...

Some time afterwards I finally decided to try out the L-39. I can't tell how much I regretted I didn’t get it before the MiG. It's a perfect plane for practicing flight maneuvers and GA, just with a basic systems. It's still my go-to plane if I want to fly a few touch and goes. It's also grate to improve ground attack skills.

 

The point is however that the pure GA trainer aircraft is I think a bit too far from the profile of DCS. The military trainers suite their role perfectly but at the same time they match the military profile of the sim and what's most important can be used in the missions for benefit of everyone. To picture what I have in my mind look at the Blue Flag - it uses the trainers and even the people that are mostly combat oriented still benefit from them. I can't see that happening with a pure GA planes and that's why I think for DCS as a combat simulator the civilian modules are just a waisted potential to grow the whole platform and overall a dead end. For people that don’t want to invest in a trainer there is also free TF-51 or even the warbirds.

 

What I think however could be done in a much better way and possibly attract more people to study and learn deeper the aviation aspects would be a proper training progression campaigns for trainers.

The funny thing is what seems quite obvious is not there (at least for L-39) and what I think is a huge unused potential. Such campaign would be a great incentive for buying a trainer. For someone interested in going deeper into aviation procedures the thre is not much content in DCS. For the most part aside of some information from manuals I had to spend la lot of time looking out the information in the forum or in internet.

Another idea is that campaigns could be oriented according to the eastern and western training program depending on which trainer they are dedicated to.

 

Another point that could be improved are the training missions included with every single module that could show the military aviation from a wider perspective than just for the most part how to do the startup and operate the system.

 

As for a western trainer - Talon could be an option but with F-5 already in place it would be a tough choice for someone to invest in. Probably the only reasonable option would be Belsimtek making one. There is also CASA C-101 which seems to be maturing and at least I’ll be getting it once the PFM is included.

 

Overall I think that the DCS could offer much more content and for sure there is an unexplored potential for those that would like to go deeper in to the general and military aviation aspects. However, the GA planes as such are probably not the solution.

[twistking]

Hello everyone,

 

First I want to thank all of your answers.

The following ask them not to take this forum as a "Troll" or a provocation as already stated in a publication.

I am a very serious, analytical person and as you love this flight simulator.

But that, I see flaws in the flight and also the possibility that there will be another market seeing that the simulator has been triumphing.

 

I am very sure that many people do not even know how to perform a basic pattern landing or military pattern or a low visibility ILS approach.

 

I am an aviation ex-military with 20 years of experience and I have been a flight crew member and I know how to do all these procedures, but when I use the simulator with other people, it is difficult for me to understand how there are people who fly an aircraft and do not know how to do it, they just want to shoot and they do not even know how to shoot or they get frustrated.

 

Some will say it's just a game, but the title says "", it's "SIMULATION" real life things "NO GAME", from my point of view it's like that, that's why I start this thread, to see if I manage to collect these signatures and to sit down a reaction before the directives of the ED, so that they reflect it and in the end they design it.

 

I want to make clear, that my idea is not to confront anyone in a row, I just look for these signatures, they do not agree or if they are, that's what it is about.

 

But if it is clear to me (as some have already said) that DCS is missing a "WESTERN TRAINER PLANE" for "elementary flight", to at least learn to land and not enter the simulator and try to land a brick like the Su -25T, (it's a good plane, but you need a lot of experience) for example.

 

I thank those who have kindly said with a YES to support my idea.

 

I hope I have not offended anyone, if that is how I apologize.

 

I understand your reasoning. Learning the right procedures for me is a vital part of the DCS(imualtor) experience. I find it extremely narrow-minded if people only refer to the "Comabat" in the DCS brand and maybe are not even remotely capable of performing a basic flight with proper procedures. That for me would be the "Simulator" part of the experience. Just bringing a Jet in the air and launching some missiles is not that big of a challenge i think...

 

However, while i think your request is reasonable, you may not know, that RAZBAM is developing a "Super Tucano", which doesn't fit your criteria exactly, as it is a torque-compensating turboprop, but i think it may still be close, to what you are looking for. It also has the benefit of not only being a trainer, but a COIN/CAS aircraft as well, so you would litereally get more bang for the buck.

Edited December 13, 2017 by twistking

[firmek]

I understand your reasoning. Learning the right procedures for me is a vital part of the DCS(imualtor) experience. I find it extremely narrow-minded if people only refer to the "Comabat" in the DCS brand and maybe are not even remotely capable of performing a basic flight with proper procedures. That for me would be the "Simulator" part of the experience. Just bringing a Jet in the air and launching some missiles is not that big of a challenge i think...

 

However, while i think your request is reasonable, you may not know, that RAZBAM is developing a "Super Tucano", which doesn't fit your criteria exactly, as it is not a piston engine, but i think it is still close, to what you are looking for. It also has the benefit of not only being a trainer, but a COIN/CAS aircraft as well, so you would litereally get more bang for the buck.

I think we're talking about the same. The L-39 and any other trainer can do a COIN/CAS missions. That was my point that you can use them to learn both GA and military procedures. They can also be used in a missions. So as you said more bang for the buck while what matters more IMO is that they match the profile of DCS as both combat and simulator ;)

[twistking]

@firmek. Yes, i mostly agree, just did not see your post before posting myself. I wouldn't however worry too much about how much a potential module matches the "profile" of DCS.

For me the only valid complain against GA-type aircrafts would be that development-rescources could perhaps be better utilized on certrain combat aircrafts, that would add "more" to the current sate of the ecosystem. But that is a discussion for another time/thread;)

[terminator363]

Mustang and Su-25 are enough /thread

[fiddlinjim]

Not interested, NO vote,

Stay with combat planes

[Bix]

[DracoLlasa]

Short: My vote is No.

 

Long: getting the YaK-52 as a benefit of work that ED has already been contracted and paid to do for a third party is one thing, and i like that as it ads to DCS world but does not really distract existing DCS pipeline and development work.

 

All dev work aimed specifically for the DCS World community should be based on combat aircraft. as a few have noted, there are a number of (very good i might add) civilian flight sims, anyone that needs or wants to learn those skill can learn them there, and apply them within DCS. besides, DCS is a sim, if it takes us a week of crashing our harriers then that's what we will do :-)

[al531246]

Nope.

[Spook]

Yes and if I sound like a broken record for what I'm about to say, I do apologize.

 

There should be a prop trainer and in-depth flight training.

 

I've said this before, but it happened to me again today. Flying online in multiplayer, while taking off, someone landed in front of me head on and careened of the runway and exploded.

 

One of the first things you're taught in flight school (well one of the first things they taught me anyway), was taking off and landing in the direction of the wind and scanning the pattern for traffic at the hold short line (I was flying out of a non-towered airport). .

 

The best opinion in favor so far.

This is what I want to get, to know the basics of a start plane when buying the simulator with some essential flight classes and then if to fly the combat jets;

certainly can not assume that everyone flies or flew the FSX or X-plane simulator:

There are people who do not know what a landing gear is, but they want to learn.

 

That is why this petition for signatures ...

[HotTom]

:lol:

[Oceandar]

As long as it can shoot A2A missiles and drop bombs by all means YES, otherwise NO :D

[azm]

No. Current DCS training jets are quite easy to learn and handle.

[=Pedro=]

I would have ED focus on the huge amount of bugs currently present in the DCS platform rather than spending time on this.

 

But it would be good once we have a stable simulator with an acceptable bug count.

 

Indeed :thumbup:

[WildBillKelsoe]

I'll say Yes to all you negative critters out there. GA are good. I'll take a Beechcraft Baron 58.

[=Pedro=]

And thats gonna be schrodingers yesno :D

[Santus]

I vote Yes

[Coxy_99]

If ED want civillain aircraft create a team an open world and leave the respected name digital combat simulator out of it. The airliner mods make a nice addition to mission editing but thats it.

[Coxy_99]

No not salty lol sarcastic, Theres a difference, Look what do we want a full amazing F-18C model with capabilities.

 

Or a Piper

 

I know where my money is going :thumbup:

 

Which would mean ED putting there resources into stuff like civilian aircraft. And pushing what i came for and others to one side.

 

Only way around is a new team from ED Open world and make there civi stuff that way yes, But that would cost them thousands. Also for me having brought every module no matter how bad, The yak 52 and eagle will be the first two DCS products i wont be purchasing, What does that tell you just from one person.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Coxy_99

[Butcher868]

No not salty lol sarcastic, Theres a difference, Look what do we want a full amazing F-18C model with capabilities.

 

Or a Piper

 

I know where my money is going :thumbup:

 

Which would mean ED putting there resources into stuff like civilian aircraft. And pushing what i came for and others to one side.

 

Only way around is a new team from ED Open world and make there civi stuff that way yes, But that would cost them thousands.

 

I cant understand, why we cant combinate that.

Let ED and 3rd Developer hire more guys who can do that and lets fly military with civilian!

And if you dont want this on your server, then dont do it.

[Spook]

If ED want civillain aircraft create a team an open world and leave the respected name digital combat simulator out of it. The airliner mods make a nice addition to mission editing but thats it.

 

Keep in mind, that the thread of this discussion does not propose civilian airplanes as such, proposes elementary training planes for novices and beginners of the DCS ... there is a great distance between both concepts.

[CrimsonGhost]

I would be interested in a full fidelity AT-6 Texan II. This is the primary trainer for most western pilots before they move up to jets. Not to mention it is a very capable light attack aircraft for its size.

[Boris]

I keep reading comments of people not wanting civilian aircraft in DCS. This would be a training aircraft in military service.

Then there's many of you who say that there already are trainers in DCS, but completely ignore the fact that the OP acknowledged the existence of the modules that represent LATER stages in training. It's like some people are being willfully ignorant.

 

Did people completely miss the fact that this is about having a complete fighter pilot training progression???

 

Yes, I get that many of you worry that this could suck resources away from something far more important and fundamental, but I think it's a good idea, at least in principle.