Cessna 172

[Fri13]

13 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t think this “general world simulator” is part of ED’s plans and after 2020 we can all realize what a farfetched infeasible goal that would be. It’s already been done now by another company with vastly more resources.

 

What does ED say about DCS World:

 

Digital Combat Simulator World (DCS World) 2.5 is a free-to-play digital battlefield game.

 

Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible. This free download includes a vast mission area of the Caucasus region and Black Sea that encompasses much of Georgia. It also includes a flyable Russian Sukhoi Su-25T ground attack aircraft and the famous WWII North American TF-51D fighter. An additional more than two dozen aircraft are available for purchase.

 

DCS World is fundamentally a deep, authentic and realistic simulation designed also to offer a more relaxed gameplay to suit the user and his particular level of experience and training. The ambition is to hand hold users from novice pilot all the way to the most advanced and sophisticated operator of such complex weapons systems as the A-10C Warthog or the F/A-18C Hornet. The only next step is the real thing!

 

Yes, we all already have known that they do not say anywhere that DCS World is meant to be a airline simulator or a "airport tycoon".

But they already touch a lot of the Cessna 172 parts, that could be said as: "that offers a fundamentally deep, authentic and realistic simulation to help novice pilots to learn to fly a more advanced and sophisticated aircraft on the digital battlefield starting with a Cessna 172 trainer".

 

https://calaero.edu/cessna-quintessential-training-aircraft/

 

"The Cessna 172, called the Skyhawk, is by far the most common training aircraft at flight schools in the US.  A well-balanced airplane with qualities that translate well to other aircraft, it’s a solid choice for student pilots. Several factors have contributed to the popularity of this stable and reliable flying machine."

 

As I have stated my opinion, I do not see DCS World as a target audience for the airliners like Boeing 747 or a Airbus 320 or anything like that. I don't repeat that anymore.

 

But, Cessna 172 is a so major influential aircraft that it is not a risk by the popularity, but it is a risk because you can more easily compare with that DCS World to other simulators and make a conclusions that how good DCS World is compared to them when it comes to flight modeling. 

As if the Cessna 172 would be made as "great and amazing" by any DCS World standard, but it would be weak by any other simulators standards, it would be shaking the status and reputation Eagle Dynamics is trying to make. 

 

Are you afraid about that DCS World is not up to task to actually model the real thing?

As many will just want to buy a Cessna 172 to do the landings and take-offs for training. To fly circles and hone their flight. That is already why L-39 and Yak-52 are in the DCS World. Because those are used to train the students and that owners can use those to training without actually going to spend so much money for flight time.

And we can not assume that all the Yak-52 or L-39 owners are from locations that DCS World has maps to... Right?

 

 

The Cessna 172 is used by militaries in their military pilot trainings, there are countless amount of owners for it, and even more students who fly it and even more pilots who has flown it.

And all those has potential to be interested to start flying as well highly realistic simulation with deeply and accurately modeled systems in combat aircraft. 

Cessna 172 wouldn't be used to learn to fly a civilian passenger aircraft in DCS World, but perform the stepping stone to military ones like L-39 and then to something else. 

[SharpeXB]

16 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

Facts are, You do not write a better code if I hire you to program somethin for a $14 an hour or $50 an hour.

You can hire a better programmer for $50/hr than you can for $14/hr

Or you could hire 3.5x the number of people for $50/hr than you can for $14/hr

Better people or more people cost more money but will get the job done better or faster. 

 

[Fri13]

Just now, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

Dude,

Let it  go already. You asked and people answered. If you don’t want to know peoples thoughts and opinions don’t ask them. 
You have published a book and now are just typing to try to win an argument that has no winner. 
YOU WANT A 172. Awesome!!!!

What do you want people to do??

 

You are making just personal attacks and insults. So just stop.

If you can not defend your argument, then do not make one.

And maybe you do not get that "I DO NOT WANT IT", as I am not so interested about it at all. 

What do you want? You just want to insult when some people would like to get somethin and they get defended against people who just go "It is not a combat aircraft!". 

[Fri13]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

You can hire a better programmer for $50/hr than you can for $14/hr.

 

That is false.

If you hire a gourmet chef to McDonnal's drive-by line, you do not get better Big Mac....

 

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Or you could hire 3.5x the number of people for $50/hr than you can for $14/hr.

 

Yes, but as said, you don't getter dish with 100 cooks working it. You just need 1 good person to do it, likely someone who has passion for it.

 

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Better people or more people cost more money but will get the job done better or faster. 

 

You have not heard saying then that good welding equipment doesn't make a bad welder to be a great one, and good welder can make better results with the bad equipment, but they still can't reach to quality what they can with great equipment. 

 

The money does not make you smarter, it doesn't make you faster, it doesn't make you better, it doesn't make you anything than just more expensive.

And if (as) you think that price is the value of the product, service or person.... then You are deadly wrong. 

Or maybe you should go and ask a raise, as you would always be able to argue to your employer that you will become relative more productive and better for it.

 

 

 

[SharpeXB]

7 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

If you hire a gourmet chef to McDonnal's drive-by line, you do not get better Big Mac....

A gourmet chef doesn’t work at McDonalds. 

[Fri13]

35 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

A gourmet chef doesn’t work at McDonalds. 

 

So experienced and skilled programmers doesn't work in products for DCS World?

[SharpeXB]

18 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

So experienced and skilled programmers doesn't work in products for DCS World?

No that’s not the point. You’re somehow trying to argue that making more money doesn’t help accomplish a business goal. That’s just illogical. 

Edited March 7, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Fri13]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

No that’s not the point.

 

Yes, you are missing the point.

The money doesn't make the code better.

The money doesn't make the quality better.

The money doesn't make someone better. 

 

Just now, SharpeXB said:

You’re somehow trying to argue that making more money doesn’t help accomplish a business goal. That’s really not logical. 

 

I am not arguing that.

You are arguing that with a larger customer base you can produce higher quality product and faster even.

If a programmer is a bad programmer, you do not make him better by telling that there is a 10 000 customers waiting to buy it if expectations so far has been that there is just 1000 customers.

You do not get product out faster because there is 10 000 customers instead 10. 

 

Your argument about why Cessna 172 wouldn't succeed in the DCS World is exactly and only about that its customer base is too small.... 

 

 

 

[SharpeXB]

17 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

Your argument about why Cessna 172 wouldn't succeed in the DCS World is exactly and only about that its customer base is too small.... 

Yes. The customer base in DCS and the appeal of a Cessna module in a combat oriented sim are too small to make it worthwhile IMO. You can see by the example of the CEII that civilian aircraft don’t sell well enough here to even complete a simple aircraft like that. Meanwhile in that other 2020 civy sim, over the course of just a few months there is already an uncountable number of custom aircraft, airports and sceneries that would take ED years to complete. Why is that? It’s pretty apparent that there are vastly more customers there funding all of it. 

[Fri13]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

Yes. The customer base in DCS and the appeal of a Cessna module in a combat oriented sim are too small to make it worthwhile IMO.

 

Then say so it is only your opinion.

Don't make a claim that with larger customer base you get higher quality or product out faster.

 

Just now, SharpeXB said:

You can see by the example of the CEII that civilian aircraft don’t sell well enough here to even complete a simple aircraft like that.

 

Where has those been said? Example of what?

 

Just now, SharpeXB said:

Meanwhile in that other 2020 civy sim, over the course of just a few months there is already an uncountable number of custom aircraft, airports and sceneries that would take ED years to complete. Why is that? It’s pretty apparent that there are vastly more customers there funding all of it. 

 

Again the wild incorrect claim that with larger customer base you get higher quality and sooner...

 

Have you even compared the SDK between MSFS20 and DCS:W? 

 

Is it like that one is required to write the aircraft simulation for DCS World in assembly, while it is possible just to import a nice 3D model to MSFS20 and it becomes correct by its flight modeling? 

Do you remember how long did the MSFX get promoted for its flight dynamics, only to be revealed (at least first time I heard it) in MSFS20 press release that it did model only a single lift surface, and now they can model thousands? 

 

Don't you think that the simulator SDK has something to do with quality you can produce or at what speed?

Or that it is the programmers skill that matters not not the customer base size that what is code quality?

 

Is it in your opinion too difficult to produce a flight simulation modeling in DCS World, if it takes too much time and money?

Does it require too much from the programmers to write the code for the DCS World software? 

 

[SharpeXB]

45 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

Don't make a claim that with larger customer base you get higher quality or product out faster.

That’s a really safe assumption. You can stop writing text walls about this now... this is just going in circles. 

[Ironhand]

On 3/3/2021 at 3:20 PM, lcabc888 said:

I think its good to have some civil planes in DCS.

I’ll buy any airframe that appeals to me—military or not. The joy, for me, is in the flying.

[Northstar98]

On 3/8/2021 at 1:29 PM, Ironhand said:

I’ll buy any airframe that appeals to me—military or not. The joy, for me, is in the flying.

Agreed.

Edited January 16, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Fri13]

16 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

That’s a really safe assumption. You can stop writing text walls about this now... this is just going in circles. 

 

It is not a safe assumption.

Your argument that You perform better if I pay to You more is false. 

Your argument that You perform better if I say to You that there is 10x more customers coming in is false.

 

It goes circles because your argument is a circular reasoning. 

 

You do not accept that the quality of the product is not based to amount of customers or even potential buyers, but directly relative to the skills of the workers and schedule that how much time can be allocated to produce the product, test the product and what are the quality of the tools to help producing the product. 

Before you can get anything started you need to get a loan or you need to get the investors to give you the money for production. And if you can not provide a business plan where you can guarantee the profits for the investor or the bank then you are not going anywhere.

 

If I would invest 50 million euros for a Cessna 172 production, I would guarantee to you that you would never find any single other simulator that would do it better than DCS World. Even if that module would get only a handful of purchases from DCS World players, it would be best. Not because the customer base or because it was expensive, but because I would have hired the best physicist, engineers, mathematicians, programmers etc to work with it, directly with the manufacturer. And most importantly I would have hired a super secretary to run all that business. 

  But even the best of the best would not overcome the limitations of the SDK and the game engine, so basically I would have been required to work with the Eagle Dynamics to improve their codebase from all parts that requires improvements - if any.

 Many can buy great things, but money doesn't do people great. They already need to be great that you would get them to project. And if someone is asking high salary, it doesn't make them great because of it, that is question of their previous work that how skilled they really are. And there are great people who doesn't ask much because they don't care about such things but value other things more. 

 

Cessna 172 in the DCS World would open many things and be profitable. But there are always risks to be done and interests to be done.

One of the classical challenges with the Cessna 172 is that they have totally different control schemes than others - a yoke vs stick. It is not sexy aircraft like a F-14 or a F-16, but it still would draw a lot of interest even from the Civilian Flight communities, that would be interested to fly it but as well try out some other combat aircraft same time.

There are flight schools and owners that use DCS World as simulator, but only for now what there is like Yak-52 and L-39. If there is no aircraft for more common flight schools, they are not interested about DCS World as they need to look elsewhere to get it = less sales = smaller customer base. 

 

Someone mentioned that Cessna requires a big licensing fee for their aircraft use, that can be problematic but likely negotiable.

 

But I almost could make a bet that if Cessna 172 would come to DCS World as USAF trainer and with few civilian skins etc and priced to 39,99, it would sell well for required work for it. Even better if the company developing it would already have all the research done with information and experience to model it using ED offered SDK.

 

At least we have got the Yak-52 that shows how amazing experiences one can get with a small civilian aircraft for learning to fly and navigate. And it is just missing opportunity to bring similar things for DCS to show what it can offer for flight enthusiastic. 

[Evoman]

I am sure most will agree that there is a need for a better training program within the free DCS download that would mimic the training one would go through as a new military student pilot. However from my understanding most student pilots are now trained on the T-6 Texan II and before that on the T-34 Mentor. So either of these aircraft should be the ideal starter aircraft that ED should be considering being part of the training program.

By the way the young student pilot in this video went on to fly the P3 Orion.

 

 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Evoman

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

Your argument that You perform better if I pay to You more is false. 

That’s not what I said, you’re on the ignore list now. Have a nice life. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Bailey]

8 hours ago, Evoman said:

I am sure most will agree that there is a need for a better training program within the free DCS download that would mimic the training one would go through as a new military student pilot. However from my understanding most student pilots are now trained on the T-6 Texan II and before that on the T-34 Mentor. So either of these aircraft should be the ideal starter aircraft that ED should be considering being part of the training program.

By the way the young student pilot in this video went on to fly the P3 Orion.

 

 

 

Introductory flight screening (IFS)
IFS is the first step to becoming a naval aviator. After passing a medical screening, all new flight school students are enrolled in one of five civilian flight schools near NAS Pensacola. For those students requiring IFS, they will complete 2 weeks of ground training and approximately 14 hours of flight training in single-engine general aviation aircraft. Coast Guard Students complete 25 hours of flight training. A student must solo and pass the FAA private pilot knowledge test. IFS screens a student's flight aptitude prior to beginning the Navy training syllabus and is waived for students reporting to NAS Pensacola with a private pilot's certificate or better, or those United States Naval Academy midshipmen who have completed the Powered Flight program. - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_Aviator#Introductory_flight_screening_(IFS))

The "single-engine general aviation aircraft" is usually a 172 or piper. Then they go to the T6.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

I'd grant your wish.

 

But, it's a 60's Cherokee 140. Because, better looking and harder to grease those landings. 

[Fri13]

On 3/8/2021 at 6:33 PM, SharpeXB said:

That’s not what I said, you’re on the ignore list now. Have a nice life. 

 

Sad, I asked you the clarification for that and you specifically said that it is so.... 
You just want to hide the truth when you can't face it.... Have a nice party time alone... 

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

Hey, 

Any update an ED’s 152 project?  Has to be getting closer to release? Which model 152 is it?  I’m hoping for the 1965 block 2 that has the take off, flies in a circle then lands capability. 
I wish Bigchewy was more transparent!

can we get it in red and white??? 
Happy Monday

[Fri13]

On 3/8/2021 at 5:04 PM, Evoman said:

I am sure most will agree that there is a need for a better training program within the free DCS download that would mimic the training one would go through as a new military student pilot. However from my understanding most student pilots are now trained on the T-6 Texan II and before that on the T-34 Mentor. So either of these aircraft should be the ideal starter aircraft that ED should be considering being part of the training program.

By the way the young student pilot in this video went on to fly the P3 Orion.

 

There are many kind of trainers out there. The point here is not just that what military variants there could be, but what more of a civilian ones for training in the real life as well. 

We can look it through a two paths:

 

Military -> Trainer -> Advanced -> Service

Civilian -> Trainer -> Hobby -> ???

 

This IMHO as the DCS World offers something great for the aviation fans and for the real flight training (procedures, rules etc). Just like with the competition there has been plenty of examples where people use them to maintain their flight skills or improve their skills between real flights. There is example story in the Huey forum about how the person got a gift as helicopter flight lessons and how well did he perform after only flying Huey in the DCS... Couldn't find the thread now but it was interesting to read how someone could just jump to helicopter first time in their life and do something...

 

While the DCS World is focused to Digital Combat Simulation, it could be 90% of the strictly for the military use meant vehicles, but 10% for as well civilian purposes. It doesn't mean that no one should never be allowed to provide any module that is used in civilian industry as well, if the DCS World itself could provide support for it. Example maps sizes, aerodynamic properties etc are ruling factors there. There is not so much sense to fly a 747 when it is more like a New York to London  -kind aircraft than from New York to Boston (5500 vs 300 km).

Why the small civilian aircraft properties would match nicely in the DCS map sizes.

 

And why it should only be about the fixed wing aircraft? Example the R22 or R44 would be very beneficial for many in DCS world even when there is no military using those for flight training. But if it would be close to the real one, there could be market for it. But comparing a fixed wing and helicopter flight modeling, they are so different and helicopter demanding more that it would be more expensive to do as well. 

 

 

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

I'd like some ga or commercial like ikarus c42. But cessna isn't one of them. That thing almost flies itself and requires zero skill,there's a reason why most start on a cessna.

[Fri13]

9 minutes ago, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

That thing almost flies itself and requires zero skill,there's a reason why most start on a cessna.

 

 

If it takes zero skill, then what can anyone learn from it? 

Isn't such aircraft that requires zero skill be useless for learning flying?

 

The F-35 does fly by itself. It will even land by itself on the carrier, vertically!

So is there zero reasons to perform training for it?

 

Yes it is easy to fly etc. Same is with Yak-52 or Christen Eagle II (more for a advanced training but...) etc. Yet they are there for various reasons.

 

Almost all airplanes are easy to take-off and land and especially to fly.

But when you require pilot to navigate, communicate, fly in pattern/commands etc, then it becomes challenging. Basically no matter what they fly, it is those skills that matter. 

Like the above video, for an aircraft that "requires zero skills", the pilot managed to trash the plane very easily in simple landing.

 

In a good weather almost anyone can land on first try on a carrier with the Hornet. It is so easy to fly. But when you need to fly by the numbers, it becomes far more challenging. When you are in pitch black night in a mist without good visuals, that is when it really becomes challenging. Add some turbulence, radio communications etc and it is a nightmare. 

Do it 100 times so you 100 times never die, never crash, never eject etc. And it is totally different ball game. 

 

 

 

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

27 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

 

If it takes zero skill, then what can anyone learn from it? 

Isn't such aircraft that requires zero skill be useless for learning flying?

 

The F-35 does fly by itself. It will even land by itself on the carrier, vertically!

So is there zero reasons to perform training for it?

 

Yes it is easy to fly etc. Same is with Yak-52 or Christen Eagle II (more for a advanced training but...) etc. Yet they are there for various reasons.

 

Almost all airplanes are easy to take-off and land and especially to fly.

But when you require pilot to navigate, communicate, fly in pattern/commands etc, then it becomes challenging. Basically no matter what they fly, it is those skills that matter. 

Like the above video, for an aircraft that "requires zero skills", the pilot managed to trash the plane very easily in simple landing.

 

In a good weather almost anyone can land on first try on a carrier with the Hornet. It is so easy to fly. But when you need to fly by the numbers, it becomes far more challenging. When you are in pitch black night in a mist without good visuals, that is when it really becomes challenging. Add some turbulence, radio communications etc and it is a nightmare. 

Do it 100 times so you 100 times never die, never crash, never eject etc. And it is totally different ball game. 

 

 

 

Because it Doesn't require any skill and it Is ridiculously simple to fly. Precisely the MAIN reason why so many start on a cessna. It is a lot easier to understand and learn the fundamentals and principles with this plane.

Edited March 17, 2021 by IkarusC42B Pilot

[Evoman]

I understand that the Cessna 172 would be a great aircraft for beginners to start out flight training with. However I can't realistically see it coming to DCS anytime soon as a stand alone module unless a private party were to contract ED to do it like how the Yak-52 was done.

However I would very much like to see ED implement a flight training program to mimic as much as possible how the military would train new pilots.

It would be great to start off with the Cessna 172 then move on to T-34/T-6 then T-45/T-2 or TH-57 for those interested in helicopters.

With the OH-58 Kiowa now in development it would be great if ED is able to work something out with the 3rd party so that a TH-57 variant could be made so that it could be included with the DCS free download. This alone would pay off in the long run because it would train many new and experienced fixed wing pilots to fly helicopters that would lead to more helicopter module sales.