A case for the T-2 Buckeye

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

Let ED decide whether or not they can afford to do that or not.

I think they’ve already said no to this idea. 

[MAXsenna]

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.

No doubt ED will!
I agree with @SharpeXB here. Giving a trainer similar to what's in the store will kinda kick the legs under for that marked. Like I've written before, the T-45 on free other hand, if it was free to make for ED, (and it still is free for the community), would make perfect sense. Carrier ops and only training weapons. It would probably lead to more sales, to bad that fell through. The Mustang trainer probably got a lot of code from the other Mustang. Hopefully it will be upgraded to a real two-seater in the future.
@SharpeXB, about MP trainers. Yes, we have free to play, and basically every module is a trainer. But you'd be amazed of how many people that loves to be hand held in the real world. FFS people are making money of this game training others.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[upyr1]

On 9/22/2023 at 3:27 AM, MAXsenna said:

No doubt ED will!
I agree with @SharpeXB here. Giving a trainer similar to what's in the store will kinda kick the legs under for that marked. Like I've written before, the T-45 on free other hand, if it was free to make for ED, (and it still is free for the community), would make perfect sense. Carrier ops and only training weapons. It would probably lead to more sales, to bad that fell through. The Mustang trainer probably got a lot of code from the other Mustang. Hopefully it will be upgraded to a real two-seater in the future.
@SharpeXB, about MP trainers. Yes, we have free to play, and basically every module is a trainer. But you'd be amazed of how many people that loves to be hand held in the real world. FFS people are making money of this game training others.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

Unless VNAO offering ED the T-45 if they include it free, then I think the best path for a free trainer would be for ED to either upgrade the user files to a mod repository and introduce a mod manager possibly using an existing solution (cough)Nexus(cough).

Edited September 23, 2023 by upyr1

[MAXsenna]

46 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Unless VNAO offering ED the T-45 if they include it free,

To my knowledge that was the offer. No clue how they would handle the licensing form the manufacturer.  

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

To my knowledge that was the offer. No clue how they would handle the licensing form the manufacturer.  

If they offered it to ED then that should be the free trainer. 

[MAXsenna]

If they offered it to ED then that should be the free trainer. 

Agree, but I think it didn't work out. But that would've been the best solution.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[upyr1]

2 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Agree, but I think it didn't work out. But that would've been the best solution.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

I wonder if the problem was Boeing 

[SharpeXB]

5 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

To my knowledge that was the offer. No clue how they would handle the licensing form the manufacturer.  

If ED included it in the game, even as a free aircraft, I’m sure it would still need that permission. 

[MAXsenna]

If ED included it in the game, even as a free aircraft, I’m sure it would still need that permission. 

Yeah, would think so.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

I wonder if the problem was Boeing 

I'm not even sure they got that far.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Evoman]

12 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Unless VNAO offering ED the T-45 if they include it free, then I think the best path for a free trainer would be for ED to either upgrade the user files to a mod repository and introduce a mod manager possibly using an existing solution (cough)Nexus(cough).

 

I just recently saw this video from 8 months ago and I discovered a brief conversion between VNAO lead developer on the T-45 and Wags in the comments.

MattWagner

We have not been approached to make this an official module.

 

particleman2579

As the lead dev for the VNAO T-45 module that's not exactly the case Wags. It's a shame that you are publicly commenting that we never approached you to make it an official module. We would have loved to have continued to work towards a retail module but it just didn't work out that way. Hope that clears a few details up straight from the source.

MattWagner

We never received a formal submission. You have been and will always be free to do so. You can PM me on our forum and I will send you the submission guidelines. Kind regards and best of luck.

After that the channel creator was going to try to arrange a meeting between everyone: "let’s get together in Discord for a couple of minutes. This either has potential or needs to be closed. ~Juice"

 

Since then I have not found more info of what may have come from that meeting.

 

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Evoman

[MAXsenna]

@Evoman
Thanks! I stand corrected then. Was never supposed to be free, so that's the end of discussion of that. Still, it is the perfect "free trainer".

Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[cfrag]

I believe we should not mix these issues. 

First question: can or should ED invest funds into making a full fidelity cockpit for a free aircraft. Only ED can answer that question. I believe the fact that we only have one such plane for free can be indicative of the way that ED are leaning.

Question two: should ED make a Trainer plane for free. I personally believe that trainer aircraft are specialty air craft only for enthusiasts like me (I own all trainer aircraft for DCS, and that includes the Hawk). They are uninteresting for most neophytes, so the idea to draw people in to DCS with an underwhelming (from a 'thrill' perspective) air frame is questionable at best. Most new DCS users want to blow stuff up, and while some Trainers can be configured to do so, they can't match a 'real' fighter nor bomber. The idea of using a trainer in a two-seater configuration to train new people is (in my experience) a non-starter for multiple reasons:

• most people simply don't multi-play (lamentably, and I'm eternally hopeful that this changes). Meaning: two-seating a trainer is a non-event from a business case perspective.
• most people don't like the idea to be a student whilst driving a fighter plane. Shooting approaches or executing 2 minute turns is not what people have in mind when they approach DCS. The want (I assert without fact other than what I experienced in my group) to bank'n'yank and "fox whatever" the hell out of the enemy.
• IRL, trainers have a purpose: to save the lives of the trainee, and reduce cost for the defense budget. These don't translate to DCS. Crashing your plane has no consequences other than allowing you to learn from your mistakes (which may even be an advantage as you can test the envelope of your airframe much earlier than the typical 1000 hours of stick time in the disturbingly real world). So, trainer aircraft have appreciable no purpose in DCS - other than being lovingly crafted, exquisite and incredibly beautiful models to make enthusiasts giddy with joy. I *love* flying my C-101 and MB339. But no-one else in my group shares that enthusiasm, everyone else climbs into their Mudhen, Tomcat, Huey, Hornet or Hog. To learn carrier approaches, they simply try until they make it down, and occasionally watch an instructional video. *I* would love to have the Goshawk, yes. Everyone else shrugs, aims for the deck and repeat until successful. Sure they'd train some bad habits. Who cares? As long as they can walk away from the landing, it was good.

So, I we see a free FF plane in the future (which would surely be nice, but not likely), there is very little reason for making it a Trainer, and a lot more for making it a fighter or bomber. All IMHO, of course.