Start with A-4E/Tucano mod or FC3 planes?

[The_Chugster]

I keep going back and forth on what is the best plane to start with, I do have the A-10C but it is very complex (didnt realise at the time) and i do have FC3 and mods,

It seems to make sense to start with the A-4 then move onto the F-15C before diving into one of the big 3 (4 when the Phantom comes out) but are there any other mods i should look at?

[Gianky]

Question: do you have any previous experience with complex airplane like the 4th generation fighters, in other sims?

[The_Chugster]

Been flying various sims for a long time (since Dogfight on the Amiga) but nothing study level like with DCS

[Joe1978]

Although DCS has excellent trainers (Albatros or C101), I would recommend the A4 or the F5.

[Gianky]

I'd start with the A-4E, but, when you're comfortable in it, move on directly to the A-10C; yeah, it's complex, and it can be intimidating, but you don't have to learn all at once, on the contrary, you should "bite it in little chucks", digest them, then bite a little more. Pluse, the Hog is a finished module, stable and with a lot of content, both paid and free that'll give you plenty of choice. I'd say the only other module that can do the same, right now, it's the Hornet.

[draconus]

21 hours ago, The_Chugster said:

I keep going back and forth on what is the best plane to start with, I do have the A-10C but it is very complex (didnt realise at the time) and i do have FC3 and mods,

It seems to make sense to start with the A-4 then move onto the F-15C before diving into one of the big 3 (4 when the Phantom comes out) but are there any other mods i should look at?

Wow, that's a lot of jumping around. You don't even have a preference for the airframe or role?

Study sim is as complex as you want it to be. You can start airborne and start flying and fighting right away. There's a single binding to follow full automatic start sequence on the ground. Or you can learn all the systems and procedures, making proper radio calls, doing long missions with your squad to see how deep is the rabbit hole.

Less forum time, more flying, man.

Btw: what big 3? You mean full fidelity F-teens? What Phantom has to do with that?

Edited March 11, 2022 by draconus

[p3t3rmax]

IMHO- the only worthwhile planes in FC3 are the Migs, mostly the Mig 29 although the 33 is handy for flying off the carrier and has great cargo carrying capacity so can do a bit of dumb bombing as well - 27 is similar apart from not being carrier capable. I do love the Mig-29 though for its trickier flight model. They're all very similar so easy to switch. The F15 is too arcady IMHO so not very realistic.

The A10C is not that bad to get going on, just eat it in small pieces as Gainky suggests, has an amazing flight model so do lots of general flying - takeoffs and landings, etc. Pretend you're doing a PPL! Then start learning armaments one by one with easy missions you can create yourself. Key me thinks is a good HOTAS setup and then rerun all the training until you start getting the hang of it, just takes a lot so time so be patient. I always start hot on the runway, don't have time and energy for the lengthy startup, will also cause a divorce. Don't discount the free Su 25t as it is an amazing bomb truck, being faster than the A10 helps too. I regularly jump into dog fights between the two in my own missions. I think the A10Cs AA missile logic is over the top as I regularly get shot down by it when I'm in any of the Migs in single player missions, perhaps I don't know what I'm doing! 

[draconus]

3 hours ago, p3t3rmax said:

IMHO- the only worthwhile planes in FC3 are the Migs, mostly the Mig 29 although the 33 is handy for flying off the carrier and has great cargo carrying capacity so can do a bit of dumb bombing as well - 27 is similar apart from not being carrier capable. I do love the Mig-29 though for its trickier flight model. They're all very similar so easy to switch. The F15 is too arcady IMHO so not very realistic.

You're calling Sukhois Migs? You're calling F-15C's PFM "too arcady" and "not very realistic"? Not a good way to trust your words.

[Tshark]

I recommend the A-4E.  It is a full fidelity aircraft with all the basic systems (ECM, radar, air to air missiles, ground ordinance) to get you familiar.  You can also do carrier ops and air to air refueling.  The F-5 and FC3 aircraft are not this versatile.  On top of that, the A-4E is free and you risk nothing if you do not like it! 

[Mikey74]

I recommend the A-4E also. It has all you need to know about aviation, A2A, A2G. Also the Kneeboard (right Shift + K) is also the manual, excellent Module for free.

U can land, take of from Carriers. You can find lot's of Videos on Youtube too already.

[Callsign112]

23 hours ago, The_Chugster said:

I keep going back and forth on what is the best plane to start with, I do have the A-10C but it is very complex (didnt realise at the time) and i do have FC3 and mods,

It seems to make sense to start with the A-4 then move onto the F-15C before diving into one of the big 3 (4 when the Phantom comes out) but are there any other mods i should look at?

I think the first step is to take your time learning, and let your interests guide you in that. If you already have FC3 + the A10C II, then I think you are really well setup in terms of modules that will help you achieve the goals of your interest, assuming your A10C purchase is an indication of your interests.

What I did to help me through the learning curve that is DCS was to initially learn as much as I could using the free Mustang trainer with practice supplemented by instructional YouTube videos (lots of them out there), before adding gunnery to my experience in the paid Mustang module. 

In your case, you could use the A10A, and Su-25 FC3 modules to learn a lot about how things work before adding to your experience in the A10C and Su-25T. If I understand correctly, one of the intentions behind the FC3 modules is to help people with the learning curve a little. Of course you can also work at learning other modules like the free mods, but without knowing how well mods are supported with instructional documentation, damage models, bug reports ect... I can't say if they will be as helpful in the teaching process as a fully supported DCS module.

Good luck and enjoy, I plan to follow you in the A10A.

[ak22]

On 3/10/2022 at 4:11 PM, The_Chugster said:

I keep going back and forth on what is the best plane to start with, I do have the A-10C but it is very complex (didnt realise at the time) and i do have FC3 and mods,

It seems to make sense to start with the A-4 then move onto the F-15C before diving into one of the big 3 (4 when the Phantom comes out) but are there any other mods i should look at?

I would just start the with the A-10C  the tutorials are great the way the systems are used is very logical and easy to use once you learn the inputs. I started of using auto start up and learning how to employ the weapons & navigation, you can dive into the more complex things which I haven't even done yet! its easy to fly and land also. 

[darkman222]

Dont forget: You wont be able to join a lot of servers with the Tucano or the A4. FC3 aircraft are really cheap and official DCS aircraft.

[cfrag]

On 3/11/2022 at 11:21 AM, p3t3rmax said:

IMHO- the only worthwhile planes in FC3 are the Migs

I think such a statement should come with a strong disclaimer stating what you think "worthwhile" means, and how you came to that conclusion. I do value your HO, and I can make much more out it if I can see the reasoning behind it. Personally, I'm partial to the A-10A (even more than the C and C II) because of its modest complexity, benign (yet excellent) flight model, immense carrying capacity, and sheer fun when engaging enemies.

Oh, and as someone already mentioned: the there is no Mig 27 in FC - that's a Sukhoi. A darn good, one too.

And I also want to mention the ugly little duckling, the free Su-25T which can carry a surprising (perhaps op?) amount of firepower and can really be fun to fly. 

[Lace]

You don't mention whether you are currently or are planning to be a VR user - this has a bearing on your decision as due to the non-clicky cockpits, FC3 aircraft are effectively unusable in VR (or useable with a huge amount of button binds to remember).

Personally I am an advocate of flying the aircraft you want to fly.  The concept of trainers in a sim world is flawed, given there are no consequences for failure or crashing, and the cost per hour is the same no matter which module you fly.  If you want to fly the A-10C, then fly the A-10C.  Start small.  Learn to start it, fly, navigate, and land.  Learn the gun, then unguided rockets.  Learn dumb bombs. Learn the TGP and guided rockets & LGB.  Learn mavericks and sidewinders.  Learn tactics and enemy capabilities.  Learn IFR, AAR and night ops.  Don't try to be combat proficient in one or two flights. 

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

[cfrag]

1 hour ago, Lace said:

FC3 aircraft are effectively unusable in VR (or useable with a huge amount of button binds to remember).

I fly exclusively VR, and I find that all FC3 planes are eminently flyable, with a modicum of keybinds. It does require require a better HOTAS device, yes, but when you fly VR, you don’t skimp on control hardware. Most keybinds (like for instance ripple interval etc) aren’t required for most missions. I doubt that I have more than 20-30 binds per device on any FC3 plane, with many buttons on my HOTAS (Virpil Alpha/Throttle) left unbound (and that includes view control). Yes, you need a better HOTAS. And yes, they are very flyable in VR

All IMHO of course

 

Edited March 12, 2022 by cfrag

[Lace]

4 minutes ago, cfrag said:

I fly exclusively VR, and I find that all FC3 planes are eminently flyable, with a modicum of keybinds. It does require require a better HOTAS device, yes, but when you fly VR, you don’t skimp on control hardware. Most keybinds (like for instance ripple interval etc) aren’t required for most missions. I doubt that I have more than 20-30 binds per device on any FC3 plane, with many buttons on my HOTAS (Virpil Alpha/Throttle) left unbound (and that includes view control). Yes, you need a better HOTAS. And yes, they are very flyable in VR

All IMHO of course

 

 

Hey, if FC3 works for you that's great, but I respectfully disagree.  Even with several Warthog/Cougar combos at my disposal, I find the fact that I have to bind simple functions like gear, canopy, battery switch, etc to buttons overcomplicates things.  With FF modules, I don't need to remember button maps, I just push the button.  When flying the Viper with my Cougar for example, The only keybinds I have are LMB, RMB, Mouse Scroll up/dn, ESC and VR Centre (all modified stick hats).  Everything else is on the HOTAS or a button I can press in the cockpit.

[Callsign112]

3 hours ago, Lace said:

You don't mention whether you are currently or are planning to be a VR user - this has a bearing on your decision as due to the non-clicky cockpits, FC3 aircraft are effectively unusable in VR (or useable with a huge amount of button binds to remember).

Personally I am an advocate of flying the aircraft you want to fly.  The concept of trainers in a sim world is flawed, given there are no consequences for failure or crashing, and the cost per hour is the same no matter which module you fly.  If you want to fly the A-10C, then fly the A-10C.  Start small.  Learn to start it, fly, navigate, and land.  Learn the gun, then unguided rockets.  Learn dumb bombs. Learn the TGP and guided rockets & LGB.  Learn mavericks and sidewinders.  Learn tactics and enemy capabilities.  Learn IFR, AAR and night ops.  Don't try to be combat proficient in one or two flights. 

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

You raise a really good point, and one that would be hard to argue against. The concept of having a separate aircraft for training in a computer simulation doesn't carry the same meaning it does in the real world. But it still does help learning. A big part of learning comes from seeing slight differences in something over multiple encounters, or through repetition with multiple systems. Like differences between two versions of the same jet, or between a jet trainer and a full blown fighter, or like in your example, practicing in the same module over and over again. 

The Mustang trainer for example is purely part of a business model. Its purpose was to help develop your interest in DCS World. But at the same time, it also helped those that practiced with it enough to first develop the interest to learn the Mustang. If that person becomes interested enough to go on and buy the full Mustang module, he/she will not only already be able to fly and land it, but the slight differences between the two will help highlight further learning. When something is perceived as being too difficult, it destroys the intrinsic motivation to learn.

I completely understand how and why the OP finds the A10C complex. I think the OP's main goal should be to try and get over that hump to give his interest a boost. This is not an uncommon concept in learning SIMs like DCS World. As you suggested, you should first learn things like startup, taxi, take-off, and landing before learning how to fight. And yes you can simply do the same thing in the FF Mustang, but you don't need the added complexity when all you want to do is develop interest. I think that is the value of trainers in a SIM like this. They water it down a bit, to make it more manageable, so that it is easier to develop interest.  

I think your "how do you eat an elephant" example is probably one of the best analogies for training modules in a computer simulation. They help simplify the process of learning complex systems. Because at the end of the day, ED loses a customer and the community loses a member when the barrier to developing enough interest is too high.   

[draconus]

7 hours ago, Lace said:

...due to the non-clicky cockpits, FC3 aircraft are effectively unusable in VR (or useable with a huge amount of button binds to remember).

That you have a problem with some teen bindings does not make a module unusable in VR. Due to their simplicity they perform exceptionally well in VR.

Edited March 12, 2022 by draconus

[DmitriKozlowsky]

Neither. If you want to DCS level training without 100 hours of study, start with F-5E Tiger II. If you get good with F-5E, it makes transitioning into more sophisticated aircraft easier and efficient. If you want to stick with FC3. The most usefull, as far as airmanship is Mig-29, due to its advanced realistic flight model. Especially landings, and maintaining proper speed in lattern patern. If you are deadset on starting with free DCS mod, then begin with A-4E-C. But I really cannot recommend F-5E enough. You'll actually be replicating real world fast jet progression. In USAF it is basic flight - T-38(F-5E in DCS)-F-16C. In USN TA-4(DCS A-4E-C)-F/A-18C or AV-8B or F-14 or future F-4. F-5E is a great lead in to Mirage2000C.  I try to avoid any mod with Standard Flight Model. SFM is not good exposure, becouse it allows development of bad habbits. Wait until Pucara has EFM or it becomes a commercial module with realistic professional flight model.

[Lace]

10 hours ago, draconus said:

That you have a problem with some teen bindings does not make a module unusable in VR. Due to their simplicity they perform exceptionally well in VR.

 

YMMV

I said 'effectively' unusable.  If the end goal is competency in a FF module, then simply learning a load of key binds will do nothing to prepare you for that.  A huge part of flying is about instrument scans - i.e. following a pattern around the cockpit as you interact with various controls and witness their effect.  With a clicky cockpit in VR you are looking at each control as you interact with it, and can develop these scan patterns (especially important in VR since you can see the panel, but can't see the keyboard).  Lets take the very simple example of landing gear.  In a clicky FF module, you are forced to look down at the lever, you click it, verify the lever has moved, wait, verify three greens, then go back to the finals scan of on-AOA, on-centreline.  Now a with the FC3 aircraft there is nothing making you look down at the lever, you just press whichever button is allocated to the gear level down, without taking your eyes away from the HUD.  Good for simmers, bad for pilots.  If you are just trying to learn to play the game, then it isn't that important, but if you want to fly FF modules in a competent and professional manner, then it is.

The point is that FC3 aircraft are fine in their own right, but are not well suited as a stepping stone to the FF aircraft, which ultimately is what the OP is asking.  You could spend a dozen hours in the FC3 A-10A, how much will that have taught you about the FF A-10C?  Nothing, there is no commonality, no scans or flows, no procedures.  Just pushing keys.

[draconus]

4 hours ago, Lace said:

Lets take the very simple example of landing gear.  In a clicky FF module, you are forced to look down at the lever, you click it, verify the lever has moved, wait, verify three greens, then go back to the finals scan of on-AOA, on-centreline.

Actually I press the LG binding in the Tomcat too I still have to take my hand off HOTAS though. Scanning instruments and learning procedures is absolutely not part of FF and can be done the same in FC3 aircraft - it's as professional as you want it to be. You may be right about the switches and learning their placement, I give you this, but FF power comes with full control of every system - the method of using the controls is only tiny fraction of this.

Ex. I learned proper approaches and patterns in F-15C. With smart waypoint usage I learned TACAN nav, flying radials, ADF or Bullseye calcs. That was before I have put my hands on any FF aircraft.

If you are proficient in A-10A imo you already have 90% of what it takes to be A-10C pilot. Idk maybe I'm old school but the aircraft is about aviation first and foremost. Button pushing can be learned by anyone. Piloting and decision making is a skill hard to get.

Edited March 13, 2022 by draconus

[Lace]

38 minutes ago, draconus said:

Actually I press the LG binding in the Tomcat too I still have to take my hand off HOTAS though. Scanning instruments and learning procedures is absolutely not part of FF and can be done the same in FC3 aircraft - it's as professional as you want it to be. You may be right about the switches and learning their placement, I give you this, but FF power comes with full control of every system - the method of using the controls is only tiny fraction of this.

Ex. I learned proper approaches and patterns in F-15C. With smart waypoint usage I learned TACAN nav, flying radials, ADF or Bullseye calcs. That was before I have put my hands on any FF aircraft.

If you are proficient in A-10A imo you already have 90% of what it takes to be A-10C pilot. Idk maybe I'm old school but the aircraft is about aviation first and foremost. Button pushing can be learned by anyone. Piloting and decision making is a skill hard to get.

 

You can teach monkeys to fly.  It is the button pushing which turns a VFR bimbler into a combat effective fighter pilot.  How would you structure the A-10A training?  Given there is a one-button start procedure, you won't learn that.  The NAV/COMMS is through a magic non-interfaceable radio set.  Ok, I'll give you arrival and departure procedures (same for any aircraft essentially), weapons delivery has zero commonality with the FF A-10C, You might learn 'navigation' in a first principles sense, but it will not teach you how the nav systems in the C work nor will the A teach you the handling characteristics of the C, given the simplified FM.  There is no reason why if the end goal is flying the C, you would not just start learning the C.  There is nothing specific to the aircraft that the A will teach you.  You might as well use a C172 in xplane for learning the basics.

One question though, assuming you are a VR pilot (since that is why this came about), why do you use the gear keybind in the F14 rather than a glance and a click?  Do you look later to verify correct gear travel?  Is it not immersion breaking to reach for a keyboard with the headset on?

[cfrag]

4 hours ago, Lace said:

I said 'effectively' unusable.

I guess that is indeed the bone of contention - your (perhaps non-standard) definition of 'unusable'. Planes that are real-life designed with HOTAS are effectively combat-usable with only using HOTAS - by definition. It's part of their design. I personally find a plane perfectly usable when I can take off, ingress, deliver my munitions on target, egress and land successfully. I can do that in any FC3 plane in VR, with many functions unbound. So, personally I find FC3 planes very usable. A personal preference, I guess. WRT procedures - of course you aren't getting anywhere with an FC3 plane, when the entire start-up process is 'electricity on', 'start left', 'start right', 'close canopy'. But that's hardly a VR thing, that's FC3.

Just now, Lace said:

You can teach monkeys to fly.  It is the button pushing which turns a VFR bimbler into a combat effective fighter pilot.  How would you structure the A-10A training? 

You are moving the goalpost. You initial statement was that in VR, FC3 planes are effective unusable. Now you are focusing on full-fidelity, which has nothing to with VR. FC3 planes aren't FF in flat screen either.  

[Lace]

3 minutes ago, cfrag said:

I guess that is indeed the bone of contention - your (perhaps non-standard) definition of 'unusable'. Planes that are real-life designed with HOTAS are effectively combat-usable with only using HOTAS - by definition. It's part of their design. I personally find a plane perfectly usable when I can take off, ingress, deliver my munitions on target, egress and land successfully. I can do that in any FC3 plane in VR, with many functions unbound. So, personally I find FC3 planes very usable. A personal preference, I guess. WRT procedures - of course you aren't getting anywhere with an FC3 plane, when the entire start-up process is 'electricity on', 'start left', 'start right', 'close canopy'. But that's hardly a VR thing, that's FC3.

Anything is possible if you want it enough, but the question for the OP was which aircraft to start with.  My argument was simply that if they are a VR user (we still don't know if they are) then FC3 complicates things be requiring keys to be mapped (and remembered) which is not the case in the FF modules.  The F-5 is much easier to learn, to switch on the battery, I click the battery switch, I don't need to remember if it is LShift+B, or RShift+B, or whatever.  The learning curve is steep for new users,  Just remembering the start procedure is difficult enough without having to remember which arbitrary key press is required to do that thing.  You can only fit so many penguins on the iceberg.

IMHO FC3 workload can be higher*, and ultimately wasted time which could be used learning proper FF modules.  If the end goal is to fly FC3 aircraft, then great, go out and learn them.

* especially for VR