A case for the T-2 Buckeye

[Fri13]

It does look like a good module and I'm seriously thinking of buying it too.

But it can't land on a carrier.

 

It can't, but then again free modules are rare things.

 

TF-51 is for cockpit manipulations and propeller aircraft.

Su-25T is for attack performance (SEAD, DEAD, AT, CAS etc etc) and jet aircraft.

 

My real problem with all these trainers is, that you don't need a trainer in a simulator!

 

Buy a Su-33 for carrier operations and you can crash through the deck or dip in the sea as much one wants, you get to fly ILS landings via HUD, instruments or do what ever wanted.

And that module price is such dirty cheap so often that there is no excuse to get one, other than it is metric instead imperial.

 

That is reason why I long time ago suggested a change in trainers, to make them actual trainers!

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=162399

 

You can see, many do not like the idea that those who have purchased a trainer module could invite their old friends or new friends to fly with them in their owned trainer aircraft, without requiring the friend to purchase it. The friend could never fly the aircraft alone but you would need to be sitting in the back seat all the time. It would always be DUO flying.

 

And it would totally inspire many to start training with their community friends by taking them up in the virtual skies, show how to do BFM and so. So all that their friends would need to do is:

1) Install DCS + Caucasus map

2) Install the trainer module (Free to download)

3) Connect to same online server.

4) Wait module owner to spawn in trainer and open up the seat in that trainer.

5) Connect to that open seat.

 

As long the module owner sits in the rear seat, so long can a friend be sitting in the front seat. Rear seat ejection would mean automatic front seat ejection.

Rear seat disconnection / jump out would mean automatic front seat ejection.

 

Now, anyone could buy the module and take their friends up in the sky without them purchasing anything, get them interested and invest some money to first single-seater modules etc.

 

But the trainer main point truly would be that you two would be there together, training together, flying together. And if trainer implements correct rear seat override controls, they have the power to take the aircraft controls away from front seat and fly etc without first seat capable to do anything.

 

This would as well allow super great co-piloting with friends and family in same household.

Example, set two computers where you put your 10 year old nephew sit in the front seat with VR. And you sit in the rear flying from the desktop PC.

You can have older PC, even just a laptop as rear seater and pilot to do the fancy maneuvers etc when your family is experiencing the first virtual flights and then even get to fly.

 

The trainers are not some major amazing aircrafts really. Sure the L-39 is great for the aviation hobbyists and amateurs who can train to fly that real aircraft in their aviation club etc. But for virtual pilots who wants "boom" it is not so amazing aircraft.

 

That is what I would like to see in the trainers overall, make the second seat free/open for others without requiring them to purchase the module for the "hands-off!" experiences.

And in my suggestion for L-39 it is the C, non-combat variant and not the ZA with combat loadouts etc.

 

I completely understand that F-14 type aircrafts are behind license, as you are as important as WSO as someone else is as pilot. You are likely actually the mission officer at the rear and pilot is there to fly you around!

 

In Gazelle I completely get the license requirement for the co-pilot in the HOT 3 variant, but not really for a cannon+rocket or Mistral versions, as the Co-pilot can't do anything with those.

 

This would open lots of points for aircrafts like T-2 Buckeye that one can buy it and then open the front seat for the friend without license. And then go there and perform landings together or go shoot some sea/ground targets with cannons and rockets.

 

The cooperation should be the key thing with trainers, not purely interest to fly those limited aircrafts!

[Santus]

Buckeye for the win

+1

[Mig Fulcrum]

Evoman, this would be a very nice idea but there is a very big problem: if there is a T-2 for free, who would buy a L-39 or C-101?

The only good way is to give the TF-51 a multicrew capability.

[Evoman]

Evoman, this would be a very nice idea but there is a very big problem: if there is a T-2 for free, who would buy a L-39 or C-101?

The only good way is to give the TF-51 a multicrew capability.

 

 

For starters the TF-51 is not exactly an easy airplane for a first time pilot to fly. There have been many threads about DCS needing a more ideal trainer to be included with DCS in the past.

 

I would rather they add something else with tricycle gear like a T-2 Trojan that would be a more ideal trainer. Plus it would be better able to prepare pilots for carrier ops since it is carrier capable and entice new players to move up to a more advanced Naval aircraft.

 

The L-39 and C-101 will always have its fan base that will buy it regardless. Plus they have served as light attack aircraft in other countries.

[jaguara5]

Bumping this old thread. You never know. I love the T-2E

[SharpeXB]

Video game players don’t need trainer aircraft. The reasons that these exist in the real world aren’t present in a game. That should be obvious…
DCS doesn’t need any more free modules because all the modules are available as free trials. Developing a full fidelity module for free would no doubt be cost prohibitive. Those resources would be better spent on other things. 

[MAXsenna]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Video game players don’t need trainer aircraft. The reasons that these exist in the real world aren’t present in a game. That should be obvious…

Disagree with this. The C-101 has some of the best training missions of all the modules. And trainers can be fun to fly together even if it's not your cup of tee. I do know some real life instructors use these. 

 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

DCS doesn’t need any more free modules because all the modules are available as free trials. Developing a full fidelity module for free would no doubt be cost prohibitive. Those resources would be better spent on other things. 

Absolutely agree with this. 

[SharpeXB]

21 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Disagree with this. The C-101 has some of the best training missions of all the modules. And trainers can be fun to fly together even if it's not your cup of tee. I do know some real life instructors use these. 

Sure you can have a trainer. But you don’t need one. If you want to just jump right into a front line aircraft you can. This isn’t real life. 

[MAXsenna]

Sure you can have a trainer. But you don’t need one. If you want to just jump right into a front line aircraft you can. This isn’t real life. 

Semantics!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[SharpeXB]

53 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Semantics!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

No this really is a game. You can just train yourself in an F-18 if you like. Nobody in the real world gets to just jump into one first but it’s ok here cause this isn’t real. 

[upyr1]

15 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Sure you can have a trainer. But you don’t need one. If you want to just jump right into a front line aircraft you can. This isn’t real life. 

If you don't want a module a module don't buy it.

[SharpeXB]

11 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

If you don't want a module a module don't buy it.

My point is DCS doesn’t need a free trainer aircraft. 

[Dragon1-1]

Well, it does need a free aircraft that wouldn't be an FC3 jet (and preferably one that won't handle like a pig). Since full modules are way too complex to give away for free, a trainer is a perfect choice. That's why we have a free WWII trainer already.

Also, like it or not, you may not need a trainer, but it does help if you learn to fly one. It builds good habits that translate to other aircraft, and certain tasks, most notably carrier traps, would be easier to learn, especially for those not interested in the F-18 (the F-14 has a steep learning curve, and earlier jets will be even harder to trap). 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Since full modules are way too complex to give away for free, a trainer is a perfect choice.

Any full fidelity module is too complex and expensive to make for free, trainer or not. Since every DCS module is available for a free trial, no additional free planes are necessary. 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Also, like it or not, you may not need a trainer, but it does help if you learn to fly one. It builds good habits that translate to other aircraft, and certain tasks, most notably carrier traps, would be easier to learn, especially for those not interested in the F-18 (the F-14 has a steep learning curve, and earlier jets will be even harder to trap).

But the downside of this approach is that it requires another aircraft. And if they aren’t interested in it what’s the point? I can’t imagine telling a new player who’s excited about an F-14 that they need to buy and learn another aircraft first. That makes no sense. Sure learning an F-14 might be tough but unlike real life you can screw it up as much here as you like until you get it right. The baby steps necessary in real world training aren’t relevant to a game. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

And if they aren’t interested in it what’s the point?

The point is not to quit in frustration after the 50th time crashing into the back of the boat. You may have the patience to just push through that frustration, others don't. You may also have bad habits that often result from that approach. I had to unlearn quite a few things when moving from the Viper (on which I started) to the Hornet, and then some more moving from Hornet to Tomcat.

Also, that's why it's being suggested as a free aircraft (and no, free trails are not the answer, especially not for Steam users). It's something you could tell people to practice on, without making them spend money. And no, it's not true that any FF module is too complex to give away. Trainers are relatively simple aircraft, especially ones from that era. More complex than TF-51, sure, but probably less than you think.

[SharpeXB]

5 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Trainers are relatively simple aircraft,

Nothing is simple in DCS. Everything takes years and years to get done. I would want EDs effort going to something more worthwhile. Again any module in this game can be trialed for free. 
 

10 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The point is not to quit in frustration after the 50th time crashing into the back of the boat.

This game isn’t that difficult. Really… 

[Dragon1-1]

8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

This game isn’t that difficult. Really… 

Trapping in the Tomcat if it's your very first aircraft? It's definitely this difficult. You have a skewed idea of just how tough this can be to learn, because you have done so long ago that it seems easy for you. DCS learning curve is incredibly steep by gaming standards, particularly for vintage aircraft, and it takes either FBW or a docile trainer to smooth it out.

[Evoman]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

But the downside of this approach is that it requires another aircraft. And if they aren’t interested in it what’s the point? I can’t imagine telling a new player who’s excited about an F-14 that they need to buy and learn another aircraft first. That makes no sense. Sure learning an F-14 might be tough but unlike real life you can screw it up as much here as you like until you get it right. The baby steps necessary in real world training aren’t relevant to a game. 

 

This is the very reason why VNAO created the T-45C Goshawk as a free module. See the below interview with them giving the reason why at 31:17min. Up until its release there really was not an ideal trainer that prepared someone for carrier ops.

Trying to learn carrier ops while also trying to operate a complex fighter like the Tomcat or Hornet as a newbie is not ideal. Heck it took me a lot of practice in the Tomcat before I was able to consistently land on deck with out issues. Which by the way it took way longer than the free trial period would had allowed.  And when you are training for something like carrier ops it is crucial to stick with the same aircraft to have consistency. So jumping from the Hornet to the Tomcat just to keep using free trails is just going to delay the training as the newbie has to learn a whole different aircraft and get used to how it flies totally different than the previous aircraft. In my personal experience I still struggle trying to land the Hornet on a trap successfully because I have gotten so used to how the Tomcat feels and handles.

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Evoman

[SharpeXB]

56 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Trapping in the Tomcat if it's your very first aircraft? It's definitely this difficult. You have a skewed idea of just how tough this can be to learn, because you have done so long ago that it seems easy for you. DCS learning curve is incredibly steep by gaming standards, particularly for vintage aircraft, and it takes either FBW or a docile trainer to smooth it out.

First of all somebody can free trial the Tomcat to see if it’s something that’s too hard for them. And if they’re motivated enough they’ll buy it and learn. Or you can start with an easier to fly combat aircraft like the A-10C or something. Not everyone is a hapless quitter though. If you like the F-14 and that’s what excites you about DCS you’ll learn. Also new players don’t need to do carrier landings right away. It’s a game, you can do whatever you want in it. 
And again developing a full fidelity module to allegedly keep quitters from quitting isn’t cost effective. 

38 minutes ago, Evoman said:

Trying to learn carrier ops while also trying to operate a complex fighter like the Tomcat or Hornet as a newbie is not ideal.

The Hornet is freaking easy. You guys make too much outa this stuff. Who are you trying to sell the game to? Someone who’s never held a job and can’t read? It seems like you’re trying to force people to play the game who honestly just don’t want to. A 15 year old kid could learn to play DCS.

Edited September 19, 2023 by SharpeXB

[SharpeXB]

50 minutes ago, Evoman said:

And when you are training for something like carrier ops it is crucial to stick with the same aircraft to have consistency. So jumping from the Hornet to the Tomcat just to keep using free trails is just going to delay the training

The purpose of the free trial is as a trial. The whole point is for people to buy the module, not freeload on it. I realize people who can’t stick to learning something probably also can’t stick to holding a job in order to afford the module either but that’s their problem. DCS development shouldn’t be handicapped by trying to appeal to quitters. 

Edited September 20, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Evoman]

23 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

First of all somebody can free trial the Tomcat to see if it’s something that’s too hard for them. And if they’re motivated enough they’ll buy it and learn. Or you can start with an easier to fly combat aircraft like the A-10C or something. Not everyone is a hapless quitter though. If you like the F-14 and that’s what excites you about DCS you’ll learn. Also new players don’t need to do carrier landings right away. It’s a game, you can do whatever you want in it. 
And again developing a full fidelity module to allegedly keep quitters from quitting isn’t cost effective. 

The Hornet is freaking easy. You guys make too much outa this stuff. Who are you trying to sell the game to? Someone who’s never held a job and can’t read? It seems like you’re trying to force people to play the game who honestly just don’t want to. A 15 year old kid could learn to play DCS.

 

Dude, everyone here has pretty much explained it to you plain and simple on why a Naval trainer is a good ideal.. Just because you see it easy for you personally DOES NOT apply to everyone else. Just like I could say driving a manual car is easy for me personally, it is not necessarily going to apply to everyone else. And as much I am for all cars being manual the majority of the American car market thinks other wise. I suggest you stop imposing your personal views on others as it being the only way.

[MAXsenna]

6 minutes ago, Evoman said:

Dude, everyone here has pretty much explained it to you plain and simple on why a Naval trainer is a good ideal.. Just because you see it easy for you personally DOES NOT apply to everyone else. Just like I could say driving a manual car is easy for me personally, it is not necessarily going to apply to everyone else. And as much I am for all cars being manual the majority of the American car market thinks other wise. I suggest you stop imposing your personal views on others as it being the only way.

While I do actually agree with him about giving it away for free. ED has stated that FC3 takes as much resources as FF, which makes any module a substantial task.

Now, to my knowledge the T-45 was offered as free to the core, but somehow that stranded, and I guess the public development of it too, which is very sad. Because that would have been a welcome addition to the core for everyone, and I guess would've raised the sales of the Hornet even higher, as it has no weapons. Well, training ones it is has though. 

Cheers! 

[SharpeXB]

20 minutes ago, Evoman said:

Dude, everyone here has pretty much explained it to you plain and simple on why a Naval trainer is a good ideal.

But ED cannot afford to make free full fidelity modules no matter what benefit they might seem to be. That should also be plain and simple clear. 

[upyr1]

On 9/19/2023 at 7:47 PM, SharpeXB said:

But ED cannot afford to make free full fidelity modules no matter what benefit they might seem to be. That should also be plain and simple clear. 

Let ED decide whether or not they can afford to do that or not. I think we have at least one free community module which I think makes a great trainer that being the A-4.