Semi realistic US training progression in DCS World

[agathorn]

Hi,

 

Lately ED has really been rocking the awesome and iconic US aircraft with the F18, F14, and upcoming F16 (sadly the F15 got sort of left behind) and this has got me thinking that what's missing is a good set of trainers for pilots that want to follow semi realistic progressive flight training.

 

According to wikipedia the CURRENT progression is as follows:

 

USAF track for F16/F15:

Primary Flight Training: T-6

Advanced Flight Training: t-38

 

USN track for F18/F14 (though F14 is discontinued, it was on the same track historically so if it was still flown its safe to assume it would follow this track:

Primary Flight Training: T-6

Advanced Flight Training: T-45

 

Now the F-5E in DCS World already is pretty darned close to the T-38. Close enough that I'd say it's a fair module to use if you wanted to follow this track in your own study. I am not too familiar with the T-45 however, but it looks to b very similar to the T-38 so I'd imagine that an F-5 is a suitable DCS replacement there as well. I'd love to hear some input from people in the know if this is wrong.

 

The T-6 however doesn't really have a DCS equivalent that I can see. As it is used by both branches and by many other air forces around the world as a trainer, I think the T-6 would be a great addition to DCS World some day.

[dawgie79]

It's a sim. No need for trainers because when you crash the bird you can start over.

[streakeagle]

It's a sim... the option to simulate the training of real pilots is nice to have for those who want it. It is not my cup of tea, but for the same reasons I enjoy having aircraft modeled so realistically that the real pilot manuals are useful, I understand there are those that would like to simulate the full experience of training to become a military pilot. It is well within the sim's capability.

 

The Yak could be an adhoc T-6. The L-39 and C-101 are trainers, too.

[Harlikwin]

Yeah, we have a ton of trainers already, and the F5 can be considered in that category too. I'd much rather see some iconic 60's 70's 80's airframes than yet another trainer.

[jmarso]

Agree with the above. Don't need to relive my days teaching the 'Level Speed Change' to a FAM-2 in the Tormentor. Much rather conduct Alpha Strikes on North Vietnam. :D

[VIKBELL]

You do have a TF -51 could be your primary start trainer for the t-6 slot. It comes free with this and a great place to start.

[TLTeo]

Between the TF-51, Yak-52, C-101 and L-39 we pretty much have training covered both for the Red and Blue side. The fact that the USAF, USN or USMC do not operate those aircraft is irrelevant imo.

[Kev2go]

Yeah, we have a ton of trainers already, and the F5 can be considered in that category too. I'd much rather see some iconic 60's 70's 80's airframes than yet another trainer.

 

no the F5E shouldn't be considered a trainer. Its a light weight inexpensive single seat tactical fighter. Trainers are by nature dual seat (in some cases totally unarmed), to have and instructor sit in the back.

 

 

think of it as a "low" mix fighter of its generation to an aircraft like the F4.

Edited May 26, 2019 by Kev2go

[flyco]

As someone who spends a fair amount of time ‘instructing’ new members to our group, I would settle for a simple copy of at least some of the more important instruments and controls to be exportable to another player.

 

At the moment I have to formate on the ‘student’ pilot and use R/T to instruct. When covering such topics as entering complex data into the A-10C CDU, for example the ability to see this, as it goes in, would be very helpful.

 

However, I accept that this would not be a simple task to implement and I am not sure how much lag there would be.

[Py]

no the F5E shouldn't be considered a trainer. Its a light weight inexpensive single seat tactical fighter. Trainers are by nature dual seat (in some cases totally unarmed), to have and instructor sit in the back.

 

That's due to real-life requirements of the instructor being able to teach (observe, give feedback, assist if necessary).

In DCS, do we need any of that?

We can try anything we want with no consequences, aircraft price doesn't matter, and we can get assistance from people by sharing our screen over twitch or similar. Even better for an instructor than sitting in the back.

 

Sure some people may be interested in flying simple trainers, but I expect most people would prefer to just fly the "target" plane eg F-14/FA-18 and learn on that. With unlimited resources at ED then sure, why not, but for them it doesn't make business sense to develop modules that will likely have low sales.

[Extranajero]

Agree with the above. Don't need to relive my days teaching the 'Level Speed Change' to a FAM-2 in the Tormentor. Much rather conduct Alpha Strikes on North Vietnam. :D

 

Yep, definitely enough training aircraft. We want the Century Series please ;)

[Mars Exulte]

no the F5E shouldn't be considered a trainer.

 

Two seat is useless/pointless in DCS. It's a stand-in for the T-38. Sp yeah, if somebody wants to fly one, they can use the F-5. Close enough.

 

At OP, you have the full progression already.

 

Basic : Yak-52. This is its real world role.

Basic Jet : L-39 or C-101. This is their real world role.

Advanced Jet : Normally this would be a two-seater version of the final aircraft. See above, this is somewhat unnecessary in a simulator.

 

 

 

They do not have the specific pipeline for every air force in the world, but they have a sampling of role appropriate aircraft that can achieve the same purpose. Considering the usefulness of 'training aircraft' in a world where death and accidents have no consequence, this is more than sufficient.

 

If you REALLY want to go through 'the real thing', then may I direct you to your local recruiter.

[Kev2go]

That's due to real-life requirements of the instructor being able to teach (observe, give feedback, assist if necessary).

In DCS, do we need any of that?

We can try anything we want with no consequences, aircraft price doesn't matter, and we can get assistance from people by sharing our screen over twitch or similar. Even better for an instructor than sitting in the back.

 

Sure some people may be interested in flying simple trainers, but I expect most people would prefer to just fly the "target" plane eg F-14/FA-18 and learn on that. With unlimited resources at ED then sure, why not, but for them it doesn't make business sense to develop modules that will likely have low sales.

 

 

Yes we all know this, and this very much applies if you are only a Single player. for Multiplayer, having a Dual seat capability, ( even in a combat plane like F14 or a future Potential F15E) has merit for training because some of us do actually partake in some level of socializing online, therefore you can have an actual Instructor ( experienced virtual pilot ) teaching the ropes to a new coming pilot to that particular platform., being with them in the aircraft during their learning process.

 

 

Two seat is useless/pointless in DCS. It's a stand-in for the T-38. Sp yeah, if somebody wants to fly one, they can use the F-5. Close enough.

 

At OP, you have the full progression already.

 

Basic : Yak-52. This is its real world role.

Basic Jet : L-39 or C-101. This is their real world role.

Advanced Jet : Normally this would be a two-seater version of the final aircraft. See above, this is somewhat unnecessary in a simulator.

 

 

 

They do not have the specific pipeline for every air force in the world, but they have a sampling of role appropriate aircraft that can achieve the same purpose. Considering the usefulness of 'training aircraft' in a world where death and accidents have no consequence, this is more than sufficient.

 

If you REALLY want to go through 'the real thing', then may I direct you to your local recruiter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some real comprehension issues some people have here.....

 

 

 

Where did i anywhere in my post say anything about wanting the exact "real thing" or complaining about not having proper training progression? Oh right .........your response is null because of lack of comprehension.

 

 

I merely pointed out to correct that the F5E is a combat jet, a tactical supersonic fighter, not a trainer.

 

Just because its derived from a T38 from its earlier Predecessor ( F5A) , or thats its not a complex aircraft doesn't make it a trainer. If anything it was used as a "stand in" for a the Mig21 in aggressor units in US service.

 

In the real world its adversary was in fact the Mig21 iterations in various conflicts via export use.

 

 

Edit:

 

as an FYI the Yak52 is only suitable as a trainer, for Eastern aircraft. Western aircraft have different avionics, and use the Imperial system over the Metric system. IN turn that would mean A T6 Texan or the like would be. Besides they are suitable for Aerobatics, IE like the Christen eagle.

 

 

Besides the more the merrier. IF you don't like trainers, no ones forcing you to buy them. So there is no need to be antagonistic and dismissive of other users who do buy them, especially as some just like to fly anything that can take up in the skies, or want a complete collection.

Edited May 27, 2019 by Kev2go

[Py]

Besides the more the merrier. IF you don't like trainers, no ones forcing you to buy them. So there is no need to be antagonistic and dismissive of other users who do buy them, especially as some just like to fly anything that can take up in the skies, or want a complete collection.

 

I don't think people have been antagonistic or dismissive, they have just said that they don't feel that there is a strong need in DCS.

Not like "some of us do actually partake in some level of socializing online".

 

Anyway, screen sharing via twitch etc seems like a really good way to train to me, do you disagree?

The instructor can see exactly what the student sees, not just a limited subset of instruments and controls. But do what you prefer, I'm merely making a suggestion.

 

As for "Besides the more the merrier. IF you don't like trainers, no ones forcing you to buy them.", I agree perfectly with you and I don't see anyone else disagreeing. More planes is more fun!

Pointing out that ED is more likely to make combat planes than trainers doesn't mean I don't want you to have fun, it's just pointing out a sad fact of commercial software development.

If they do make more trainers then great, I hope you have a lot of fun with them.

[Py]

It's no wonder these forums have a reputation of being "toxic"

If you don't want it , just don't buy it, geezzz

 

Seriously, you think this thread is being toxic??

Because some people have politely said something you disagree with?

You are free to politely disagree with them too, it's a discussion.

 

I think everyone is happy to have more of the less popular modules such as trainers in DCS if they are done by 3rd party developers.

It's just that ED themselves already have the DCS engine and multiple unfinished early access modules to work on, so people are worried about new projects causing delays with these.

 

Prioritising popular modules is not "hating" anything, companies just need to make a profit before they can work on modules that will have fewer sales.

Hopefully they will eventually have a wider variety of aircraft so everyone has their favourite planes :)

 

<rant...> (this should really tick off the "lonely unwanted aircraft" haters) :thumbsup:

 

Yeah that would be an example of a toxic attitude...

[msalama]

Sure some people may be interested in flying simple trainers

 

Some people like myself are interested in one trainer only, and that trainer is the L-39ZA. And not for training purposes either, but as a light CAS / COIN platform because the bird is just excellent for that. I can even routinely take out light armor such as BTRs, BRDMs and MTLBs with the S-5s now and bomb fairly accurately too.

 

So the Albie has its uses outside the training environment. Rather, it boils down to your preferences and making suitable missions for it. I'm a stick and rudder guy myself and thus find the high-tech birds rather boring, regardless of their formidable strike capabilities and overall effectiveness over the battlefield. But that's just me ;)

[msalama]

PS. And oh, nothing against the trainers per se even if I don't use them as such. Just let the devs do whatever they deem worthwhile. And the more the merrier, of course.

[WinsStars]

I just need a developer team to tell me they have a plan to remake the lovely Hawk... :noexpression:

[Bogey Jammer]

I'm not excited by yankee aircraft or methods very much, but I would gladly try to practice their pilot formation. Implementing this formation within DCS would be very challenging. Even without the complete accurate set of aircraft, It would still be extremely valuable.

[draconus]

If you don't want it , just don't buy it, geezzz,

It's not that simple. ED still has to use some resources to make the new modules working in DCS, and even if you don't buy them, you still download GBs of files into DCS core after the update.

[Py]

And while the Lonely Unwanted Aircraft Studios® initial concept was more of a facetious thought, the more I think about it, the more I like it.

:D:D:D

 

All it needs is a DCS fan winning the lottery :)

[Mars Exulte]

@Kev

It doesn't matter if the ''avionics'' are different. The purpose is teaching basic flight. Which you can learn with a glider, except for engine management. And if somebody can't convert back and forth between metric and imperial then they should really like... learn. And yes, I know what you meant. I was elaborating what most people are refereing to when saying the F-5 is a good trainer (stand in for T-38, with much simpler, easier to learn systems than a F-14/16/18 etc, ie a good intermediary aircraft)

 

 

 

It's not intended as dismissive. It's just factual, they aren't going to replicate the full pipeline for every country out there, and there is no particular reaaon to try considering the lack of incentive. I agree, every plane in the world would be nice... but in a world of limited resources and sales, making a shit ton of assorted training aircraft that almost ENTIRELY OVERLAP in capability and performance is probably a bad idea @@ Along with a touch of sarcasm regarding keyboard warriors who want it so real but don't want to enlist to GET the real experience ;)

 

@DigitalEngine

This is a public forum. Not everyone likes/agrees on given topics. I'd suggest using a blog if you want to post in a read-only format @@ Otherwise, yeah, people are going to voice their opinions. And yeah, in the real world, with limited resources available, they may disagree about 'what should be focused on'.

[agathorn]

Wow I feel like I opened a bit of a can of worms here.

 

Not my intention.

 

I think the F-5 is a fair stand in for a T-38 even if i isn't quite right as a real trainer being single seat and what not.

 

What I am still unsure of though is how good a stand in it is for a T-46 which the USN uses. I'm not familiar with that Aircraft (I was Air Force so don't have much familiarity with Navy aircraft).

 

I also still don't see a good stand in for a T-6 Texan. I appreciate the comments, but the most suggested Yak really has a very, very different performance profile even if you ignore the origins of the aircraft.

 

So while I appreciate the amount of trainers currently in the sim, most of them are jet trainers (L-39 and C-101 are jet trainers). There really isn't a "high performance" prop trainer. The Yak is far below the T-6 in terms of flight performance, and the Albatros is way above it.

 

Maybe something like a P-51 or Spitfire is actually the closest right now, though both would be way off in terms of technology so that would be a hitch in the learning curve.

 

I appreciate that everyone has their own minds on what aircraft should be included, and at the end of the day all we can do - each and every one of us - is communicate our own desires in a civil manner and let Eagle Dynamics decide what they want to focus on. Belittling one person's choice because it isn't yours isn't very nice.

 

At the end of the day I am only offering my own thoughts on how I think the overall product could be improved. Right now if on wants to follow a semi realistic training regimen, the you essentially need to step out of DCS for the start and go to civilian focused sims. Obviously DCS as a product would benefit from retaining those users as much as possible.

 

And for those who say it's a sim who cares, well some people do. There are many, many players who embrace the study sim aspect and many people who for one reason or another dreamed of flying these aircraft but we denied that opportunity for whatever reason. For some people the training aspect is just important as the end goal, and they want to simulate that progression as much as possible.

 

I served in the US Air Force in an enlisted capacity and always regretted not making the right choices early on in life that would lead me to being able to enter the academy and fly, which was always my dream.

 

Let's try to remember that everyone is unique and has their own views. There isn't any reason to stomp on them just because they may be different from your own.

 

(note: this message was typed up on a Macbook Pro whose keyboard has a unique personality of its own. I apologize if certain characters are missing from words)

[Harlikwin]

It's not that simple. ED still has to use some resources to make the new modules working in DCS, and even if you don't buy them, you still download GBs of files into DCS core after the update.

 

Yup. Even though I rarely fly them I bought the already existing trainers. But I really wish those teams had spent their time on something else. I.e. a SU25 instead of the L39, or a Mirage F1 instead of the C101.

[Mars Exulte]

@agathorn

There's an A-29 Super Tucano in early stages of dev. It'll be a long time before we see it, but they are verrry similar to the AT-6 Wolverine (itself based on the T-6 Texan).

 

And you didn't open a can of anything. It's an internet forum and we're all somewhat bored and argumentative ;) You'll get used to it =)