Proficiency poll

[Kaktus]

Hi guys,

 

 

Small poll, i dont know if i will set it up properly, it goes like this;

 

Tell us how proficient you are in particular module, how many you have, etc. 

 

I will do my take please take same form for easier reading.

 

Number of modules: 7

Ka50, Mi-24, Mig15, Mig19, Mig21, F14, P-47.

 

Proficiency: 

Ka50: 4

Mi-24: 1

Mig-15: 1

Mig-19: 1

Mig-21: 1

F-14B: 5

P-47: 3

 

Legend: explanation for marks, 1 to 10, 10 means you know not just everything but also you are very fluent in using your lnowledge coupled with your skills, for instance youcan do formation flying very close for longer time than 1 minute ( lets say 20 min), can refuel easily 9 out of 10 times and can maintain contact throughout, understand where you are on space, can find air base bacl home without F10 map option cheating, basically you are as close to a real pilot as possible, weapons employment, accuracy, aerial tactics (attacking in pairs, 4s, etc.).

 

1 means obviously the opposite. Rate yourself as you feel as normally hard to be very scientific with this poll, just generalization yo get a feel for it.

 

If you can write why such bad low proficiency numbers in your modules (lack of motivation, campaigns, dynamic campaign, lack of time, bad gear (your stick is cheap and cant perform smooth precise movements etc).

 

For me its lack of time definitely, i barely put 2 hours per week of flight time, so far i am on a mission to lewrn refueling with tomcat, started 1 month ago, and started by gunning down tanker after PIO on the basket non stop to now holding position easy, even connecting but sadly disconnecting like 3 seconds in..

 

Again thank you for you input, would love to see your "results"... ))))

 

[AKULA_OPTIMUS]

Number of modules: 4 + some maps and supercarrier.

F/A-18, F-16C, Viggen, C-101 (Plus Su-25, 27, and 33, but those are not full fidelity) 

Proficiency: 

F/A-18: 7 (My first FF module, I know how to operate it and all its weapons systems in combat pretty well, but it has A LOT of systems and still have to learn many things)

F-16C: 7/8 (Same as the Hornet, this past year I flew it a lot, so I believe I know the plane a bit better than the F/A-18 just because I forgot things about it)

Viggen: 7 (I fly it less because its more task limited, but I enjoy the hell out of it when I´m doing it)

C-101: 8 (My newest module and the one I have less hours in, love it, all systems are modelled, but as it lacks modern avionics, its easy to learn and master, you have to know how to fly with this aircraft, not operating a computer like the others).

 

With the trial periods I have flow almost all of them, and with many I learnt quite a bit, but I don´t count them for this.

[SharpeXB]

Why does this matter? Play DCS at your own pace. Don’t worry about what other players do. FWIW I feel I get more out of DCS by focusing on a few or even one module at a time and learning it very well. 

[Qcumber]

How long does it take to learn how to fly any plane properly? In real life and in sim. 

I am only 2 years into flights sims and I feel I am at a basic level of proficiency overall. I am better with warbirds but that has always been my thing. DCS has got me revisiting a childhood interest in late cold war planes, but am finding these a lot harder to master.

I own 9 modules (Spitfire, p-51, p-47, K4, A8, F-86, Mig-21, F-14, F-16) and by switching between them I am getting a broader understanding of flight mechanics and BFM. I think there are benefits to learning one aircraft very well, but you can also learn a lot by diversifying. It's also a lot of fun.  

Edited February 3 by Qcumber

[ex81]

I mainly fly only two planes. The Hornet because of their ability to practise carrier landings and the warthog because it is a real powerfull ground warrior.

Tried a lot of others but could not have fun with it. And after many years of practise I can handle those two very well.  I think that´s what counts.

[Schlingel mit Kringel]

As i like to say: everybody 'mastered the module' until you ask what best climb speed for their airframe is, if they can explain a z sled, when to do a teardrop entry, how to read an approach chart... or if they can do a clean level turn with steady bank angle and speed. In my experience, most people vastly underestimate how demanding the job of a combat pilot is and what a 10/10 actually looks like. Hence i doubt there will be some useful results from this poll. Fun topic nevertheless.

Think i still got most of my hours in the A-10C (since 2015 or so, its lots of hours) and i'd rate me a 4 or 5 probably in there. I am good with basic handling, know most of the workflow (getting rusty, did not learn most new stuff from A-10C II, forgot old stuff), get a clean takeoff, departure, overhead break and AAR done. Still (or better said 'again') struggle with advanced CDU functions, can not explain z sleds, fly 20 miles the wrong direction until i realize i got the to-from flag wrong again

Also got the F-16, F-18, Viggen, C-101, Mi-8, Mi-24, Ka-50, FC3 planes and P-47. I was quite deep into the Viggen for a while. Don't even know how to drop a bomb in the F-jets but got the basic handling and nav systems working and can AAR okay in the Viper. Always get into the C-101 when working on navigation skills, lovely jet and recommend for learning to fly. I'd really like to love warbirds, but i do not get my head around them sadly. FC3 planes, love the Su-25A (gib FF module now) and fly the MiG-29 so i can transition once the FF module drops. Generally tired of MFD and western jets, i neglect them for quite some time now and just occasionally fly them (F-16/18 and A-10). Just about to order new rudder pedals and get more time in rotary wings. So get a helmet everybody, soon-to-be a 3/10 in Soviet helicopters (okay, and the Bo-105 when it drops).

[GGTharos]

5 hours ago, Qcumber said:

How long does it take to learn how to fly any plane properly? In real life and in sim.

I am only 2 years into flights sims and I feel I am at a basic level of proficiency overall. I am better with warbirds but that has always been my thing. DCS has got me revisiting a childhood interest in late cold war planes, but am finding these a lot harder to master.

I own 9 modules (Spitfire, p-51, p-47, K4, A8, F-86, Mig-21, F-14, F-16) and by switching between them I am getting a broader understanding of flight mechanics and BFM. I think there are benefits to learning one aircraft very well, but you can also learn a lot by diversifying. It's also a lot of fun. 

I think the problem you're encountering is that there is no one to tell you what to learn and how.  And I do mean with respect to flying an aircraft and its aerodynamics, how you translate that into piloting etc.   Operating the system is ok, but that's mastering the aircraft's systems.

[Qcumber]

3 hours ago, GGTharos said:

I think the problem you're encountering is that there is no one to tell you what to learn and how.  And I do mean with respect to flying an aircraft and its aerodynamics, how you translate that into piloting etc.   Operating the system is ok, but that's mastering the aircraft's systems.

Yes, but I am enjoying working at my own pace. I am not in any rush. I'm pretty sure I will be playing this sim for a long time. 

[GGTharos]

Sure, but this is not the point I was trying to make.  Regardless of the pace, you're not going to know the things you could/should study if you're not told about them.  And while it isn't secret sauce, it's just not 'out there and easy to find and understand and implement' sauce.

Edited February 4 by GGTharos

[Qcumber]

1 minute ago, GGTharos said:

Sure, but this is not the point I was trying to make.  Regardless of the pace, you're not going to know the things you could/should study if you're not told about them.  And while it isn't secret sauce, it's just not 'out there and easy to find and understand and implement' sauce.

 

Fair point. How would you advise a more focused approach to learning the f-16? 

[NAM]

Can easily fly formation, air refueling, fairly decent BFM. But have not learn BVR or A/G.

For someone fairly new to DCS and having own all modules.. It would not be possible to master complexity of radar system to be proficient in BVR for all the modules.

For me Case III recovery in F14 is by far the most difficult to master, several times harder than Air refueling/fly formation.

 

 

Edited February 4 by NAM

[Kaktus]

11 hours ago, Schlingel mit Kringel said:

As i like to say: everybody 'mastered the module' until you ask what best climb speed for their airframe is, if they can explain a z sled, when to do a teardrop entry, how to read an approach chart... or if they can do a clean level turn with steady bank angle and speed. In my experience, most people vastly underestimate how demanding the job of a combat pilot is and what a 10/10 actually looks like. 

Exactly, this is at least what i know, how much i dont know, which is why my grades are so low, my basics when it comes navigation are very low, situational awarness low (when you deviate from waypoint to engage ground or air target and then try to rejoin your flight path..im talking mig15, mig19 navigation..or any ww2 birds..

 

How to study these things..i dont know, i think maybe could be a side project of DCS, Flight Academy DLC, where you enter a School of sorts and you get everything from theory and exams, understanding engine, hydraulics, aerodynamics of the plane then flying, basic, navigation, visual navigation, formation flying and then to top it all off, some sort of Top Gun to  train complex air to air combat according to doctrines of the owners of planes, soviet doctrinee obviously differ from western ones, also according to ratio of kill to loss ratio.

Edited February 4 by Kaktus
Grammer mistakes

[Schlingel mit Kringel]

2 minutes ago, Kaktus said:

Exactly, this is at least what i know, how much i dont know, which is why my grades are so low, my basics when it comes navigqtion are very low, situational awarness low (wjen u deviwte from waypoint to engage ground or air target and then try to rejoon your flight path..im talking mig15, mig19 navigation..or any ww2 birds..

 

How to study these things..i dont know, i think maybe could be a side project of DCS, Flight Academy DLC, where you enter a School of sorts and you get everything from theory and exams, understanding engine, hydraulics, aerodynamics of the plane then flying, basic, navigation, visual navigation, formation flying and then to top it all off, some sort of Top Gun to  train complex air to air combat according to doctrines of the owners of planes, soviet doctrinee obviously differ from western ones, also according to ratio of kill to loss ratio.

For a lot of theoretical knowledge, there is the Pilots Handbook Of Aeronautical Knowledge. There are also a lot of quite good videos out there regarding civil flight that teach navigation, reading charts, flying holding patterns, DME arcs, runway markings and airport signs explained and similar topics. Those are really a treasure chest of knowledge many ignore.

For western tactics and procedures, MilSim virtual squadrons are great as they often release part of their stuff to the public. I found 476th and 303rd very helpful for A-10C and F-jets. There are also general USAF public documents i always find great to browse through. There are also AFMANs for airbases that tell a lot about how things work on the ground and air (airbase layout, ground procedures, arrivals and departures... a lot of "behind the courtain" knowledge) Incirlik for example.

Russian jets is a bit more complicated if you do not speak russian (read: "me" :D). There are (russian) MiG-29 documents in the user files section and these manuals are really nicely explaining the ins and outs of the jet. Google translate does an okay job on these, good enough to figure stuff out usually. Real life manuals of the Viggen are getting scanned and translated, really interesting stuff. Different than all the other planes and a joy to learn and fly. For Soviet helicopters, i found the ingame manuals very well done including all the numbers for the different approaches for example - especially for the Mi-8 (can't tell for western helis).

I know of the Open Flight School. For the A-10C, there are the Maple Flag campaigns (BFT, AAT, TTQ). While those are more of a test to check and rate your skills, they also give a good guideline on what to learn and in what order. I too really wish there were more of such campaigns (including a teaching part) for other planes: well researched training campaigns along real life procedures.

Unpopular opinion: as a general guideline if one wants to properly learn to fly: get one of the trainers (L-39, C-101, MBB-339) and learn along civilian knowledge (all the basic skills: aircraft operation/airmanship, navigation, charts reading, holding patterns) and what you can grab regarding military stuff. And try to avoid DCS Youtubers, definitely the popular ones. They are doing entertainment, even if they call it "tutorial", and usually at best scratch the surface if at all when it comes to theoretical/background knowledge. And be patient, (combat) pilots take years to learn the ropes. None of us will do it faster.

[Exorcet]

I owe most but not all modules. Proficiency is far from consistent across them all. My opinion of DCS is that, as the sim is now, the best experience comes from air to air combat with more modern planes. Due to that I spend more time with those airframes. My proficiency is high with 4th gen aircraft though due to the nature of early access, bugs, and sometimes a tight schedule I haven't learned everything yet.

I don't focus on one module at a time, but that doesn't prevent me from learning multiple aircraft.

3 hours ago, Schlingel mit Kringel said:

Unpopular opinion: as a general guideline if one wants to properly learn to fly: get one of the trainers (L-39, C-101, MBB-339) and learn along civilian knowledge (all the basic skills: aircraft operation/airmanship, navigation, charts reading, holding patterns) and what you can grab regarding military stuff. And try to avoid DCS Youtubers, definitely the popular ones. They are doing entertainment, even if they call it "tutorial", and usually at best scratch the surface if at all when it comes to theoretical/background knowledge. And be patient, (combat) pilots take years to learn the ropes. None of us will do it faster.

Trainers don't really serve the purpose they do in real life in DCS. There aren't any benefits to training on them in the sim, they might even make learnnig your preferred module more difficult since there will be differences you need to adjust to when switching airframes. Trainers in DCS are just for fun or immersion, and there is nothing wrong with that, I've never regretted buying them.

[Czar66]

I have problems with question 2 and 3.

Question 2: I don't own all modules by quite a margin, but also is not just 5 modules as in '3 to 5' answer. Mi-8, Huey, F-5, F-18C, F-16C, F-15E, A-10C I & II, FC3, MiG-21, Ka-50 II & III, F-14A&B, P-51D. Besides the maps, I don't own Sinai and neither South Atlantic. I bypassed all WWII stuff besides the Mustang when it came out way back then.

Question 3: I'm currently flying 5 modules, 1 or 2 of them everyday. I don't keep flying one until I can get to be an absolute monster in it but neither I discard. The moment where DCS clicked as a proficiency based 'sport' and that you can keep learning and getting more efficient endlessly was when I flew the Hornet exclusively between 2018 to 2023. On and off within a few months from DCS but it mainly was the Hornet being the star. I then pulled the trigger on 3 modules last year being the F-15E (I just love the air-frame and good memories from the days of Flaming Cliffs 3 being the center of attention on open multiplayer back in 2012-2014, so it was a no go missing it out), F-14 (legend...and probably the most fun action packed module) and the F-16C (because why not? Sports car of the sky and decent at CAS).

DCS modules shine the more you know them by muscle memory and everything starts getting to be an extension of your body/mind. I don't get how people can be done with a module and jump to the next one or the next module to be released being that essential. Of course I'm excited to see what the F-4E brings to the table and the mid cold war era kind of engagements style is very appealing, there are very much different flavors.

If the F-5 gets a facelift or it comes to be a II module upgrade, I'm jumping into that one right away, because it still is so much of value. MiG-21 the same.

So those 2 questions got to be inaccurately answered.

Happy Flying!

[Schlingel mit Kringel]

6 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Trainers don't really serve the purpose they do in real life in DCS. There aren't any benefits to training on them in the sim, they might even make learnnig your preferred module more difficult since there will be differences you need to adjust to when switching airframes. Trainers in DCS are just for fun or immersion, and there is nothing wrong with that, I've never regretted buying them.

I strongly disagree. Trainers have a range of benefits over the other modules when it comes to learning to fly. Some of these:

- They are all two-seaters, so you can have one fly the aircraft (e.g. a landing approach, holding pattern, DME arc) while the other (trainee) has his hands and head free to watch things unfold 1st person from own perspective (what videos can not do). The trainee can also operate his own set of instruments (like turning the course needle on HSI while the teacher flies a DME arc) while asking questions and being tutored by the teacher.

- They are simple and go by the stardards. In trainer jets, there is no unnecessary stuff that overloads you. No weapon controls, no MFDs to distract and confuse you, no autopilot that teaches you to not learn to fly straight on your own, no HUD, no complicated setting up a flight plan, radios and other things all have simple dials unlike the F-16s DED or the A-10Cs ARC-210. When you start out, this is just dead weight that overwhelms you and makes learning a mess. On the forums you can see many folks hitting that wall: new guy, in his shiny super capable jet, completely swamped in all the tech he does not understand at all. Trainers just got the basics you need to fly and they are present in their standardized and simple form. Instruments are also laid out in a way you can easily observe everything. Combat aircraft are often crammed and instruments may even vary a lot from the standard. Just look at how the F-18 got no physical HSI for example. This is one of your above contra-points, but in contrary, learning the standard first makes it way easier to accomodate to differences in other airframes later. If you learn in the F-18 first for example, every other aircrafts HSI will be alien to you. Learn by the standards first, learn deviations from the norm after! It is done so in real life for a reason and is no different in a simulation.

- They are made to learn. I can only speak for the C-101 here as i do not own the other two trainers. The C-101 is clearly developed with its role in mind. You have the optional IFR hood for example (can be set in mission editor), that covers the rear seat windows and simulates flight in zero visibility conditions without the need to fly at night or in fog/overcast. The front seater though got no hood and can see freely, check the trainees actions, give corrective advice and intervene if necessary (or a singleplayer can just switch seat if necessary and by this easily switch between VFR and IFR flight). The C-101 also comes with some nice training lessons that focus soleily on learning to fly properly - like performing a clean level turn for example, which is way harder than one might think, or IFR flight. Also when flying a trainer compared to a combat aircraft, at least i fly with a different mindset and this is a big advantage. Because let's be real: many would like to learn "the boring stuff" ^TM, but as soon as you are in the combat jet, the sweet desire to just blow something up takes over.

Above points combine really well. I stand by my recommendation to get a trainer aircraft if someone wants to actually learn to fly, it is a whole different experience. Get all the basics checkmarked, be confident with all the basic instruments, with navigating by them, then head over to a combat jet. You will have a way easier time. I never regret getting the C-101 and i will get the other trainers too at some point. Only thing i regret is how i got the C-101 so late (but to be fair, it came out way after i got into DCS).

[SharpeXB]

It’s worth recognizing that DCS is a game. It’s not real. Yes it’s realistic but it’s not necessary for players to attain real world levels of competency in order to just play a game on a PC. I’d consider a “10” with a module as having the ability to conduct all phases of flight and employ all the weapons and systems as required in normal gameplay ie DLC campaigns, multiplayer missions etc. Limiting yourself to what’s in the game and the skill needed there and not comparing this to reality in that regard. It would be quite delusional to think you could attain that level of skill or knowledge in a game or that it’s even necessary. You can make these sims as real as you like I suppose but that’s a personal choice. 

[GGTharos]

9 hours ago, Qcumber said:

Fair point. How would you advise a more focused approach to learning the f-16? 

Find someone who has flown it to teach how to fly the airframe, or at least someone who knows how to say, test fly aircraft - someone who can explain flying technique.  Again, not systems (radar etc) but flying.  While some techniques will be aircraft specific, the vast majority will be usable on all aircraft and  you'll have to 'calibrate' yourself to the specifics of the aircraft like where does light/moderate/heavy buffet start etc.

And if you can't find someone, @Schlingel mit Kringel pretty much hit the nail on the head (although here I'll disagree with the trainer approach also simply because you can ignore things that aren't needed for flight).

Which portions of dealing with your aircraft you choose to focus on more is obviously up to you - I'm just saying most people focus on the explosive landscaping and tactical x-raying parts which, while important for combat, are not the flying part of operations if you catch my drift.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s worth recognizing that DCS is a game. It’s not real. Yes it’s realistic but it’s not necessary for players to attain real world levels of competency in order to just play a game on a PC. I’d consider a “10” with a module as having the ability to conduct all phases of flight and employ all the weapons and systems as required in normal gameplay ie DLC campaigns, multiplayer missions etc. Limiting yourself to what’s in the game and the skill needed there and not comparing this to reality in that regard. It would be quite delusional to think you could attain that level of skill or knowledge in a game or that it’s even necessary. You can make these sims as real as you like I suppose but that’s a personal choice. 

It's a simulator and it will serve as whatever you make of it.  You can treat it as a game or some parts of it as a game, or you can treat it more seriously.

[Qcumber]

6 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

Which portions of dealing with your aircraft you choose to focus on more is obviously up to you - I'm just saying most people focus on the explosive landscaping and tactical x-raying parts which, while important for combat, are not the flying part of operations if you catch my drift.

Thanks. That is exactly how I want to learn how to fly the F16. How it is actually used in real life, not just to get into the sky and shoot things. I can take off and land ok now, and have some basic understanding of the systems. It’s much harder than learning a BF 109 but I loved this plane as a kid and love flying it in DCS. This is what I was trying to get at in my earlier message. It sometimes feels that MP is all about shooting each other down rather than flying missions. Are there any servers which would help with my understanding and development?

[GGTharos]

No, there are no such servers - it's people that you have to look for   I don't know how you go about that but I guess making a post about it somewhere or on some discord could be a start

[bfr]

Pretty proficient on the Hornet and have kept up with things on the Eagle as they've come out. I'm OK on the Viper, but a bit behind in some areas. Tomcat & Viggen I love to fly but not to fight in (just never quite got to grips with learning the Viggen systems and never really got on with Jester in the F-14). Clocked a fair few hours on the Harrier when it was new, but that mostly gathers dust now and it'd be like starting from scratch to get back into it (especially as a lot of things were added/changed since I moved onto other things).  Same story with the A-10.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

It's a simulator and it will serve as whatever you make of it.  You can treat it as a game or some parts of it as a game, or you can treat it more seriously.

Sure you can make this sim as real as you like for yourself within the bounds of what’s actually simulated. But thinking you’ll be at the level of someone who’s devoted an entire RW career to this or that it’s even necessary is a bit outlandish. It’s a game. I completed the entire Maple Flag course for the A-10 but I don’t think for a single second that puts me on par with a real A-10 pilot. 

[Schlingel mit Kringel]

48 minutes ago, Qcumber said:

Thanks. That is exactly how I want to learn how to fly the F16. How it is actually used in real life, not just to get into the sky and shoot things. I can take off and land ok now, and have some basic understanding of the systems. It’s much harder than learning a BF 109 but I loved this plane as a kid and love flying it in DCS. This is what I was trying to get at in my earlier message. It sometimes feels that MP is all about shooting each other down rather than flying missions. Are there any servers which would help with my understanding and development?

If you do not want to join a milsim squadron, which would be the most effective way, joining their Discords and tagging along, sponging knowledge and finding likeminded folks on theses servers would be the best bet i guess. As GGThanos already said, you will not find a suitable (open/public) server with that kind of people around.

You can also try and watch full length milsim flights to learn about procedures and techniques like BTF, Szul, Florence, Panther... all without comments but great to watch closely and learn.

[Raisuli]

4 hours ago, Schlingel mit Kringel said:

I strongly disagree. Trainers have a range of benefits over the other modules when it comes to learning to fly. Some of these:

 

I have all the trainers.  My favorite, hands down, is the F-5.  Steam gauges, no autopilot, no hud, no computer, no GPS, no Bettys, or even Betty-Lous, nagging in your ear.  The radar is great for telling the enemy where you are and not much else.  Phosphor faced CRT displays.  The most high-tech thing in it is the HSI, and that's VOR/DME or TACAN, which isn't very new either.  Hand flying and endless trim adjustments wherever you go.  If you can keep that straight and level over a thirty minute flight you know how to (pretend to) fly a jet.

Ok, you can Velcro your own NS430 to the brow if you can't live without an LCD screen in your life.  Otherwise it's slide rules and E6Bs and while you were calculating range your nose dipped and that threw the trim off and now you are not where you wanted to be.  Time to recover.

As for IFR, that's just a tweak in the weather settings, or do formation flights in clouds.  You're either bolted in close or you try to maintain speed, heading, and alt on the instruments and hope you can find the lead on the other side without running into them first...

[Exorcet]

6 hours ago, Schlingel mit Kringel said:

I strongly disagree. Trainers have a range of benefits over the other modules when it comes to learning to fly. Some of these:

- They are all two-seaters, so you can have one fly the aircraft (e.g. a landing approach, holding pattern, DME arc) while the other (trainee) has his hands and head free to watch things unfold 1st person from own perspective (what videos can not do). The trainee can also operate his own set of instruments (like turning the course needle on HSI while the teacher flies a DME arc) while asking questions and being tutored by the teacher.

A first person perspective with someone else at the controls can be experienced with any module through tracks. While you can't freely control the view in a prerecorded video, you can watch one while flying your own aircraft. No doubt that sharing a plane can be interesting and helpful to learning, but you don't strictly need two seats for that. However a two seat aircraft certainly is a convenient way to work with a mentor or trainee, and you can't quite get the exact same experience through other methods. So fair point here.

6 hours ago, Schlingel mit Kringel said:

- They are simple and go by the stardards. In trainer jets, there is no unnecessary stuff that overloads you. No weapon controls, no MFDs to distract and confuse you, no autopilot that teaches you to not learn to fly straight on your own, no HUD, no complicated setting up a flight plan, radios and other things all have simple dials unlike the F-16s DED or the A-10Cs ARC-210. When you start out, this is just dead weight that overwhelms you and makes learning a mess. On the forums you can see many folks hitting that wall: new guy, in his shiny super capable jet, completely swamped in all the tech he does not understand at all. Trainers just got the basics you need to fly and they are present in their standardized and simple form. Instruments are also laid out in a way you can easily observe everything. Combat aircraft are often crammed and instruments may even vary a lot from the standard. Just look at how the F-18 got no physical HSI for example. This is one of your above contra-points, but in contrary, learning the standard first makes it way easier to accomodate to differences in other airframes later. If you learn in the F-18 first for example, every other aircrafts HSI will be alien to you. Learn by the standards first, learn deviations from the norm after! It is done so in real life for a reason and is no different in a simulation.

If something is distracting you can just ignore it. A DCS module can take a long time to learn, but I don't really find them overwhelming if a paced approach to learning is taken. You don't have to learn everything at once, not even in real life. If people are getting confused then I feel like the problem is more likely a lack of direction in training. I can't speak for everyone though so if people do find a simpler cockpit helpful then that would be a trainer benefit.

As far as learning a standard first, one could go that route, though there isn't really a need if for example you'll only ever fly the F-18. It also needs to be considered that trainers aren't uniform themselves. East and west is an obvious divide. There isn't a universal trainer and at some point if you do fly multiple planes you'll encounter something different. This may require some "unlearning" but DCS is a lot more accessible than a real plane. You can jump in and practice free of consequences any time.

6 hours ago, Schlingel mit Kringel said:

- They are made to learn. I can only speak for the C-101 here as i do not own the other two trainers. The C-101 is clearly developed with its role in mind. You have the optional IFR hood for example (can be set in mission editor), that covers the rear seat windows and simulates flight in zero visibility conditions without the need to fly at night or in fog/overcast. The front seater though got no hood and can see freely, check the trainees actions, give corrective advice and intervene if necessary (or a singleplayer can just switch seat if necessary and by this easily switch between VFR and IFR flight). The C-101 also comes with some nice training lessons that focus soleily on learning to fly properly - like performing a clean level turn for example, which is way harder than one might think, or IFR flight. Also when flying a trainer compared to a combat aircraft, at least i fly with a different mindset and this is a big advantage. Because let's be real: many would like to learn "the boring stuff" ^TM, but as soon as you are in the combat jet, the sweet desire to just blow something up takes over.

The IFR hoods in the trainers are a neat feature, but we can change the weather at will in DCS. The hood does save you a loading screen though, so there is at least some advantage to it.

I've heard people say something similar regarding mentality, but I haven't found that to be an issue personally. Sometimes I fly the combat aircraft purely for training purposes and do "the boring stuff" for quite a while. It's actually a nice change of pace from a real mission. This point does touch on something else with respect to learning DCS and that's holding interest. If people genuinely find the full combat planes more interesting, I think that's a huge factor in sticking with the plane during the learning process. I often tell people to just fly what they love, I think that's one of the most important factors when it comes to module mastery.

6 hours ago, Schlingel mit Kringel said:

Above points combine really well. I stand by my recommendation to get a trainer aircraft if someone wants to actually learn to fly, it is a whole different experience. Get all the basics checkmarked, be confident with all the basic instruments, with navigating by them, then head over to a combat jet. You will have a way easier time. I never regret getting the C-101 and i will get the other trainers too at some point. Only thing i regret is how i got the C-101 so late (but to be fair, it came out way after i got into DCS).

I also recommend the trainers, they are fantastic to fly. While I may not use them specifically for training myself, I can appreciate the desire of others to use them in that capacity. They absolutely feel different without high powered engines or FBW controls. Aiming for those coordinated turns can take some work like you said, but feel good to pull off. I've never shared a cockpit in DCS, but you've highlighted some of the benefits and I can see the appeal.