T38A For Free?

[A10Yoda]

We already have the similar system, flight module, etc in DCS, why no T38A.

You offer the T51 which is a full fidelity prop for DCS but only offer the SU25 on the jet side.  While the SU25 is a good airframe in DCS, it does not offer the attraction of a full fidelity aircraft.

With the recent drop of the Sinai map along with having several maps now that pertain to countries that have owned and operated the F5, having a FREE T38 for people to learn and get started with DCS would be a great service.

This would be the first multi-role free module that would allow experienced DCS pilots to share an experience with new people to the platform with the least amount of effort put in on the development side.

I would gladly pay for the T38..but I see this as a win for ED if you could pull it off..

[cfrag]

It's a great idea - at first blush. 

In reality, a number of things work against it, though:

• The number of players who actually multi-play is minuscule (sadly). 
• Neophyte DCS players positively loathe trainer aircraft, especially if another human bosses them around. They tend to want to blow stuff up, and the Su-25T is just the ticket for that. I know, because I own every single two-seat module available for DCS, and no newcomer ever showed interest in flying those. It may be down to my charming personality, but still... If players meet online after aligning their busy daytime schedules, they often want action, not lessons in how to correctly perform a 2-minute turn without losing or gaining more then 50ft of altitude. That's boring. Let's kill tanks!
• Most neophytes do *not* appreciate complex cockpits that get between them and dropping fuzed ordnance on hapless targets. Most of them enjoy zoom and boom, and after some time, when the sheer sugar rush of that turns into an appreciation of the finer things in life, will they turn to complex aircraft. A 50 step start-up procedure often turns off beginners, unless they are already deeply hooked into flight sims. Those, OTOH will also appreciate trainers. I still have to meet one of those, though. Again, FC to the rescue that have three-step start-up. 

So, trainers are more a thing for enthusiasts, not beginners. The Flaming Cliffs bundle has some easy to learn, very reasonably priced aircraft, and they deliver a lot of bang for the buck (I'm particularly fond of the A10-A)

I don't think that the Talon (or other trainers) as another freebie would conceivably bring enough new customers to DCS that it would recap development cost - even if ED had the resources to do so. 

So, yes, I'd really love to have access to a Talon - even if I had to pay for it. Sadly, I don't think we can make a good business case for it. 

[Rudel_chw]

2 hours ago, cfrag said:

t may be down to my charming personality, but still...

 

 ... same happens to me

 

[Tank50us]

4 hours ago, cfrag said:

I don't think that the Talon (or other trainers) as another freebie would conceivably bring enough new customers to DCS that it would recap development cost - even if ED had the resources to do so. 

So, yes, I'd really love to have access to a Talon - even if I had to pay for it. Sadly, I don't think we can make a good business case for it. 

I did some digging, since this gave me a bit of pause for thought... ED doesn't have to do the actual T-38, they could do the F-5F, a two-seat, combat capable variant of the F-5. If they went with that aircraft, people could still have a dedicated trainer, but also an aircraft that can still blow s--t up. It may not have the same performance as the current F-5, but it'd be enough that people can easily transition into other BluFor aircraft, but also *talk* with other BluFor aircraft since it has the radios, TACAN, IFF, and RWR that allows them to fight along side other US/NATO planes.

So, I could see a two-seat, combat capable F-5 being viable, and at the same time for those that have the current F-5 who would all likely go "Wait a second!", I'd say we could get other variants that are used around the world as an add-on to the current F-5 (think like Mirage F-1), and the two-seater is the only free one, but has the worst 'dogfighting' performance, but is still capable of performing in missions. The money ED makes from the ad-on could be a way to fund the development of the two-seater.

Just a thought to add to the discussion. TBT, I'd personally like to see ED put out a western aircraft that's compariable to the Su25T and free, and the list of planes that fit that role is kinda small.

[SharpeXB]

Since you can trial any aircraft module for two weeks, there isn’t much need for extra free aircraft in the game. 

[MAXsenna]

A free two seater trainer might hurt other trainer sales.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[SharpeXB]

31 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

A free two seater trainer might hurt other trainer sales.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

Every two seater in this game is free for two weeks. 

[MAXsenna]

Every two seater in this game is free for two weeks. 

That's true. You wrote it above.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Vampyre]

12 hours ago, Tank50us said:

I did some digging, since this gave me a bit of pause for thought... ED doesn't have to do the actual T-38, they could do the F-5F, a two-seat, combat capable variant of the F-5. If they went with that aircraft, people could still have a dedicated trainer, but also an aircraft that can still blow s--t up. It may not have the same performance as the current F-5, but it'd be enough that people can easily transition into other BluFor aircraft, but also *talk* with other BluFor aircraft since it has the radios, TACAN, IFF, and RWR that allows them to fight along side other US/NATO planes.

So, I could see a two-seat, combat capable F-5 being viable, and at the same time for those that have the current F-5 who would all likely go "Wait a second!", I'd say we could get other variants that are used around the world as an add-on to the current F-5 (think like Mirage F-1), and the two-seater is the only free one, but has the worst 'dogfighting' performance, but is still capable of performing in missions. The money ED makes from the ad-on could be a way to fund the development of the two-seater.

Just a thought to add to the discussion. TBT, I'd personally like to see ED put out a western aircraft that's compariable to the Su25T and free, and the list of planes that fit that role is kinda small.

I made a similar argument in a similar thread a few months ago for the F-5F.  The systems already exist and the combat capability isn't overpowering. The F-5F would showcase the basic features of DCS very well. It does make the most sense from a capability/feature/financial perspective but the only thing that really kills it, and any other free module, is the two week trial.

As for a counterpart to the Toad, another FC3 level aircraft doesn't fit within the DCS mission statement. 

[MAXsenna]

Cfrag pretty much gave you the best answer to why a free trainer isn't even necessary.
Sharpy doesn't understand that two weeks ain't enough to be trained in a trainer, if the purpose is to digg and drill down into it, and actually learn it the way it was meant to be used as a trainer, in MP. Unless I completely misunderstand what the OP is all about.
The free two weeks is not what kills it, it's actually wanting it for free.
There is a free trainer, the T-45 free community module, even if it seems abandoned currently. It's also the one that makes most sense to offer as free in any case.
Carrier based, limited systems, ease of use. Only training weapons.

My two cents anyway.
Have a great Sunday all!
Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[SharpeXB]

3 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

Sharpy doesn't understand that two weeks ain't enough to be trained in a trainer,

The purpose of the free trial is as a trial, not a free game or a time to entirely learn the module. If you want to do that then of course you should buy it which is the whole point. 

[cfrag]

I think the entire idea for 'trainers' does not translate to sim world. In RW, trainers are low-cost aircraft that allow a pilot to transition to a more complex class of aircraft, and with minimal risk to the aircraft, and pilot. The instructor has to be on board as an added safety measure: they can intervene when the aircraft departs from the scheduled lesson, and when suddenly the lesson turns dangerous. Because one goal is to intentionally get your plane outside the envelope, and to learn how to recover - a dangerous maneuver. That's the reason why all new military pilots fly 2-seater trainers, and much much longer than for a few weeks (which is why @MAXsenna correctly pointed out that a two-week trial for a free plane wouldn't be enough for a 'real' training session). 

In sim world, there is no risk to aircraft nor pilot when they learn their type (say, the Viper). Worst case, the pilot crashes the plane, and needs to re-slot. No damage done. Pilots can learn their complex plane by trial, crash and error. If there is an instructor around, so much the better, but that instructor doesn't necessarily have to be in that plane. Mostly though, and in stark contrast to the RW, no instructirs are required to learn how to fly your type. Hence, there is zero need for trainer aircraft and transitional training in flight simulators.

And it plays out like that in DCS. Pilots don't have to first train on single-engine piston propeller, then transition to complex propeller, then transition to turbines before they can start familiarizing themselves with the Hornet, Hog, Eagle or Viper. We can start at the last stage, and have fun with less than 1000+ hours combined stick time under our belt: with zero to be exact. That's the reason why IMHO, only enthusiasts get the trainer modules. For themselves. Let's be honest - those trainer aircraft (e.g. the MB339 or C101) are breathtakingly beautiful modules, that are a joy to fly. Yet I'm pretty much the only one in my group who ever flies them. Why? There is no need to do so in DCS - beside that feeling of controlling a piece of art, and the joy of performing precision maneuvers that simply feel so much more like an accomplishment compared to doing the same in a FBW yoghurt cup like the Hornet - which basically flies itself (fly the aforementioned exact 2 minute turn at 1500AGL, 180 KIAS in both, and you know what I mean  ).

So no, in DCS, trainers are for the flight enthusiasts. They make absolutely no sense for training beginners. That's why it makes no sense for a DCS neophyte to begin on a trainer. They's be bored out of their skull, and turn to other flight sims that allow them blow stuff up in no time at all. 

Edited June 11, 2023 by cfrag

[draconus]

On 6/10/2023 at 5:13 PM, A10Yoda said:

...with the least amount of effort put in on the development side.

Less effort than what? Developing full fidelity aircraft takes years and huge amount of money. Yeah, let ED work for free... NO.

[Bremspropeller]

I'd much rather have a proper Hawk and a proper Alpha Jet.

Yes, that's an AND.

[MAXsenna]

I'd much rather have a proper Hawk and a proper Alpha Jet.
Yes, that's an AND.

Throw in the T-45 AND the MB-346 for good measure!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk