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

[Magic Zach]

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.

+1

[Coxy_99]

Not been ignorant but the last part of your post sums it up, Takes resources and time, To which other more exciting aircraft get pushed back? I have no interest in the Yak or eagle and anything else that does not fire weapons for me.

[Kayos]

No way!

[Pikey]

Nothing to do with like/dislike for civilian airframes, I think from the OP it sounds as if the time would be taken away from developing a military module, in which case the reaction would be justifiably negative. And I concur, I would prefer ED and partners to focus on their differentiating expertise set.

 

There were some points made about flying authentically, my advice would be to seek those virtual squadrons out that do make every attempt not to fly like a drunk swarm of houseflies on acid, because there are plenty of them. Don't take public aerobatics servers as a yardstick of your average DCS player. Yes we might like straight in approaches but when your plane is armed, you get to call your approach how you want, it's a god thing, ok?! :)

[Magic Zach]

The Dude has spoken.

[NeF]

Mmmmmmmmmmh, no.

[DoctorStrop]

Personally I doesn't bother me either way, I wouldn't buy it, but because of the amount of vicious rants I have seen in in-game chat from experienced players at noobs due to their noobishness, makes me wonder why people don't support the training aspect.

[Johnny_Rico]

I am for NO

 

We all know there there are no other flight simulators out there , but still no

[Flia]

NO in DCS

[Coxy_99]

There were some points made about flying authentically, my advice would be to seek those virtual squadrons out that do make every attempt not to fly like a drunk swarm of houseflies on acid

 

made me laugh now theres tea in my keyboard................... :)

[Brainless]

If Training Aircraft -> More Customers-> More Money -> More Staff For What I Want THEN Yes.

[Freeroamer]

Nope.

[Donut]

If Training Aircraft -> More Customers-> More Money -> More Staff For What I Want THEN Yes.

 

If it was only that easy.

 

Unfortunately, I believe the more realistic order is More Staff ->Training Aircraft -> More Customers -> More Money

 

DCS as a whole seems to currently not have enough resources and staff among ED and the third party developers to branch off into a wide variety of aircraft development. Take the F/A-18C for example...it's development is requiring ED and Belsimtek to develop and release it into Early Access.

[cichlidfan]

It's not just a matter of staff, but staff with the requisite expertise.

[RedShoes]

No thanks.

 

TL DR, ...but why do you want an another prop trainer? Is TF-51 not working for you?

[Emmer]

Thats a negatory ; nope...........

Yak-52 is coming.

 

Nuff said.

[Ironhand]

Yes.

[Spook]

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.

 

If Training Aircraft -> More Customers-> More Money -> More Staff For What I Want THEN Yes.

 

It's what I mean ...

Money, more a good, more a knowledge, you enjoy the simulator more and there are less discussions among people in the standardization of procedures

 

Also, as Boris says ...

It is a learning ladder (based on the military, not civil), who does not climb and learn, always fly like crazy fly over oil

[Red Dragon-DK]

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.

 

That is where I believe you are wrong. It is a exactly what you are doing. It is a question about civilian aircraft in a combat simulator. And by this post you just confirm what I have said in an other post - it divide the community.

There are sims for civilian aircraft out there. Use those ones. If you are not happy with there grafik or the way it is, complain about it in their forum.

 

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

Those 2 people out there will learn anyway. Thrust me........:thumbup:

 

If Training Aircraft -> More Customers-> More Money -> More Staff For What I Want THEN Yes.

 

ED is making Yak-52. There you go. You have your training aircraft. Confirm me. This is not enough. You want more training aircrafts. Civilian aircrafts. And so it will keep on asking for more civilian aircrafts with varying reasons until DCS is being ruled by people who want to fly civilian aircraft.

This community is unique. Do not destroy it. Once destroyed, it will never come back

[PiedDroit]

Personally I doesn't bother me either way, I wouldn't buy it, but because of the amount of vicious rants I have seen in in-game chat from experienced players at noobs due to their noobishness, makes me wonder why people don't support the training aspect.

Sitting in a trainer aircraft does not magically train you, the instructor does.

 

The problem in that case is unused and/or insufficient training missions, not the lack of training aircraft - DCS is virtual, so, many platforms can be trainers, from basic training to advanced training, there is no cost issue, safety issue nor dual-seater limitation.

With the curent status of DCS (counting the Hornet), between more aircraft and more content, I favor the latter personally.

[shonist]

no ty.

[Bad_Karma-701]

I would say No to piston planes we have WWII aircraft to fit that role. But as for a Basic trainer/ COIN. I could see the AT-6B introduced at some point along side the Super Tacano that is already on the road map and in progress by RAZBAM. I am surprised they are going forward with the YAK-52 and not building its replacement YAK-152 but that is probably due to the availability of documents and data.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Bad_Karma-701

[Magic Zach]

I really don't think think this will divide the community, as long as we respect who flies what. If someone flies an F-15, awesome! If someone flies a Huey, fantastic! If someone flies the Mustang, spectacular! If someone flies the Christen Eagle II for aerobatics, super! If someone flies a Cessna 172 for general flying, airfield to airfield, admire the view, good for them. We each have our groove. And different people like different categories for their own reasons.

If civilian props get pushed out of ED's workshop, people who want it will buy it. People that don't, won't. Say Tom Cruise just got into DCS. He really likes the new Tomcat, and is impressed with how realistic it is. He really enjoys splashing MiG-28s a lot. One 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. A week later, AFP95 decides to try out a fighter aircraft, the F/A-18C. He's not a military aviation enthusiast, but he wants to try something new, and after learning it, he has fun in the Hornet. Eventually, he makes a video.

My point is, introducing GA to DCS won't separate the community. People who don't do combat won't do any combat. People who do freeflight and aerobatics will continue to do freeflight. There are actually already walls and doors in our community now. All this is doing is giving the people that want a GA or an aerobatics aircraft the aircraft they want.

However, creating GA aircraft won't be without drawbacks. This may hinder progress for other WIP modules. This is my point of view on the "It will divide the community" argument.

If I am honest, I highly doubt we will get 100% general aviation aircraft. The most we may get will be aircraft such as the C-47 (please ED, please make it flyable), C-130, or aerobatics aircraft, such as the CE2. But 737s, 747s, Cessna 172s, I highly doubt.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Magic Zach
Fat thumbs for a tiny phone

[58thPyro]

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

 

No

[Terrificfool]

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.