The significance of trainer aircraft in DCS

[dcn]

In real life,you have to start with a trainer aircraft,but in DCS,you can start directly with a fighter.In real life,a trainer aircraft can teach you how to fly a plane.But in DCS, a trainer aircraft can't teach you how to fly a plane in real life.Even the best player in DCS,when he starts to learn to fly a plane in real life,he still needs to start from scratch,that is,from a trainer aircraft.So trainer aircraft in DCS is useless?Other trainer aircraft are okay,they can engage targets,but Yak-52 has no weapons.You may be able to do some aerobatics,but its playability is too low.I can't help but doubt the meaning of trainer aircraft in DCS.It can't achieve its purpose as a trainer aircraft.Is it because virtual pilots lack real flight instructors and formal flight teaching?Or is it that learning to fly must be in real life,and the simulation in the game is not completely real,such as aircraft aerodynamics,weather,wind,g-force,your senses,etc.

Edited February 19 by dcn

[Hiob]

I don't really get your point tbh. If you don't have a need for it, you can just ignore it.
I own all "Trainer" in DCS, including the Yak-52, which I use either for sight-seeing/relax flights or for aerobatics.
My most beloved and used Trainer is the C-101 though. Not for the weapons, but for the wonderfully modeled systems and neat simulation.

And I would add, that if you use a trainer like it would be intended in RL, that is with a qualified instructor in the second seat, you would actually learn a lot about the basics of flying, instrument reading/use, procedures and patterns.
And even though that doesn't aleviate the need for proper lessons in RL, I wouldn't say, that it is not benefitial (given you start from scratch and zero knowledge)

Edited February 19 by Hiob

[dcn]

47分钟前，Hiob说：

I don't really get your point tbh. If you don't have a need for it, you can just ignore it.
I own all "Trainer" in DCS, including the Yak-52, which I use either for sight-seeing/relax flights or for aerobatics.
My most beloved and used Trainer is the C-101 though. Not for the weapons, but for the wonderfully modeled systems and neat simulation.

I have C-101,L-39 and Yak-52 in DCS and C-101 is my favourite trainer aircraft.I'm mainly targeting Yak-52.I've barely flown it,I don't know what special things I can do with it except for aerobatics.I have a CEII and I use it to cross tunnels.

47分钟前，Hiob说：

And I would add, that if you use a trainer like it would be intended in RL, that is with a qualified instructor in the second seat, you would actually learn a lot about the basics of flying, instrument reading/use, procedures and patterns.
And even though that doesn't aleviate the need for proper lessons in RL, I wouldn't say, that it is not benefitial (given you start from scratch and zero knowledge)

I don't deny that you will learn faster, but this shows a problem,DCS can't replace real life flight.You need to start from trainer aircraft in real life.That means the trainer aircraft in DCS can't achieve its purpose as a trainer aircraft.

Edited February 19 by dcn

[n0pe]

You answered it in your first sentence, "in real life"

This isn't real life, its a game. its like saying people who play COD should do some training before they can be a soldier. 

Surely trainer aircraft are used because they are cheaper to train new pilots in them, and if they have an accident, its not an insane cost to replace it and taking a war bird out of circulation. You do not have that concern in a game so train in what you will fly. 

[Hiob]

3 minutes ago, dcn said:

That means the trainer aircraft in DCS can't achieve its purpose as a trainer aircraft.

I don't agree with that. It can serve the same purpose in DCS as a RL Trainer can in RL. Given you use it in Multiplayer with somebody who is capable to teach you proper flying.

Tha Yak-52, you are correct in that is hasn't any real "purpose", given there are better two seater trainer. However it is still fun flying from time to time.

[SharpeXB]

It should be obvious, you don’t need a trainer aircraft in a game. This isn’t real life with real life consequences for your actions. Feel free to screw up as much as you like

[dcn]

16分钟前，Hiob说：

I don't agree with that. It can serve the same purpose in DCS as a RL Trainer can in RL. Given you use it in Multiplayer with somebody who is capable to teach you proper flying.

I think my core idea is that in DCS,a trainer aircraft can't teach you how to fly a plane in real life.

17分钟前，Hiob说：

Tha Yak-52, you are correct in that is hasn't any real "purpose", given there are better two seater trainer. However it is still fun flying from time to time.

You also admit that the Yak-52 is not a qualified trainer aircraft in DCS.I think Yak-52 in real life would not be so boring,because you can use it to learn to fly.This is not an easy task,it is very challenging.

[unlikely_spider]

They help to teach good stick and rudder skills, as opposed to newer FBW planes that compensate for being lackadaisical in those areas. And they force you to learn the classic steam gauges as opposed to a hud. And they're more forgiving in these aspects than the WW2 fighters that are very difficult to handle for beginners.

It's like learning to drive in a manual transmission economy car instead of either a modern luxury SUV or a late 60s muscle car.

4 minutes ago, dcn said:

I think my core idea is that in DCS,a trainer aircraft can't teach you how to fly a plane in real life.

Have you tried?

I was a simmer for years first, then a real-life student pilot later in life. I required exactly zero hours of training on the cockpit instruments before I solo'd a real airplane.

[SharpeXB]

11 minutes ago, dcn said:

I think my core idea is that in DCS,a trainer aircraft can't teach you how to fly a plane in real life.

Not sure what that means. Real life flying involves many aspects that just aren’t simulated in any game. But there are also universal aspect to flying that can be taught in any simulator. DCS can teach some of these things in any of the aircraft. In fact this sim has been used for RL training to some degree.

PS when writing in English (any western language?) it’s correct to put a space after commas, and two spaces after a period.  Like this.

Edited February 19 by SharpeXB

[Hiob]

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

It should be obvious, you don’t need a trainer aircraft in a game. This isn’t real life with real life consequences for your actions. Feel free to screw up as much as you like

You're correct. Everybody is free to "Air-Quake" and respawn as much as he likes. But I found proper learning/flying actually pretty rewarding. It's all about options.

33 minutes ago, dcn said:

I think my core idea is that in DCS,a trainer aircraft can't teach you how to fly a plane in real life.

You also admit that the Yak-52 is not a qualified trainer aircraft in DCS.I think Yak-52 in real life would not be so boring,because you can use it to learn to fly.This is not an easy task,it is very challenging.

I just don't get the sentiment that anything needs a purpose. Even if there isn't any objectively needful purpose it can still be a source of fun for people. The Yak is definitely a different experience from all jet-trainers.

[SharpeXB]

43 minutes ago, Hiob said:

But I found proper learning/flying actually pretty rewarding.

You can learn “proper flying” in an A-10, P-47 or an F-18. There’s little a trainer aircraft offers that you can’t experience in any of the models. Real life concerns like safety and cost don’t exist in a game. 

[Hiob]

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You can learn “proper flying” in an A-10, P-47 or an F-18. There’s little a trainer aircraft offers that you can’t experience in any of the models. Real life concerns like safety and cost don’t exist in a game. 

...except for the Instructor in the back seat.

[Ornithopter]

I picked up the C-101 during a sale, even though I was somewhat ambivalent about it, and was just looking for variety.  I eventually went through most of the training missions for it.  Although I wouldn't argue it's needed as a pre-requisite to other planes, for all the reasons mentioned, I think it did improve my DCS flying.  More importantly I just think it's a really good airplane for it's own sake, and I have fun with it.  It's perfect for when I feel like flying something relatively simple, or want to just explore a scenery.  I'm glad there are airplanes like this in DCS.

[SharpeXB]

38 minutes ago, Hiob said:

...except for the Instructor in the back seat.

In a game you can be your own instructor You can literally teach yourself all this stuff. Again there are no consequences for getting it wrong. Just try again. This isn’t costing you real money or putting you in any danger. It’s just a game. I do find it rather rewarding in sims that if they are realistic enough you can just go to the real world training films or whatever and learn from those and it works here. The idea of needing a human instructor for a video game seems a bit laughable. 

Edited February 19 by SharpeXB

[Beirut]

3 hours ago, dcn said:

So trainer aircraft in DCS is useless?

 

Not if it's fun. 

[Hiob]

22 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

In a game you can be your own instructor You can literally teach yourself all this stuff. Again there are no consequences for getting it wrong. Just try again. This isn’t costing you real money or putting you in any danger. It’s just a game. I do find it rather rewarding in sims that if they are realistic enough you can just go to the real world training films or whatever and learn from those and it works here. The idea of needing a human instructor for a video game seems a bit laughable. 

You must be fun at parties. 

Actually there are even proper "flight schools" for virtual pilots. Wether that seems useful to YOU (or me) really doesn't matter......

Laughable though - it's not!

[Ornithopter]

 

28 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

In a game you can be your own instructor You can literally teach yourself all this stuff. Again there are no consequences for getting it wrong. Just try again. This isn’t costing you real money or putting you in any danger. It’s just a game. I do find it rather rewarding in sims that if they are realistic enough you can just go to the real world training films or whatever and learn from those and it works here. The idea of needing a human instructor for a video game seems a bit laughable. 

If I was starting flight simulation as a complete newbie, and was brand new to full fidelity DCS planes, I think I might look very seriously at a trainer aircraft as my very first module.  Maybe people who consider themselves experienced in DCS, or are real pilots, forget that there are basic things to be learned.  The people in this thread alreadt know how to fly patterns, do radio navigation, fly at night, instrument approach, drop a bomb, etc, but if you were completely new to it, it would likely be easier to start with something simpler than a Tomcat or a Phantom.  Even the F-5 could be overwhelming to someone compIetely new.  I imagine there are people that don't even know what the flaps are for!  I didn't say a trainer aircraft is "necessary" for a video game, but traditionally one starts with arithmetic before algebra, don't they?  There is certainly nothing wrong, and probably everything right, with someone sending themselves through a simulated "real" training pipeline with the appropriate level of complexity at each stage, stepping up to more complexity in increments, instead of just being overwhelmed.

[SharpeXB]

57 minutes ago, Hiob said:

You must be fun at parties. 

Actually there are even proper "flight schools" for virtual pilots. Wether that seems useful to YOU (or me) really doesn't matter......

Laughable though - it's not!

But if anyone wants to train and fly together they can do that in any module. A dual cockpit trainer isn’t necessary. Sharing screens on Discord works really well. I’ve shown DCS to many people in person and done practice with others online and truthfully all of them want to fly the plane. Nobody I know would want to just ride around as a trainee  

45 minutes ago, Ornithopter said:

 

If I was starting flight simulation as a complete newbie, and was brand new to full fidelity DCS planes, I think I might look very seriously at a trainer aircraft as my very first module.  Maybe people who consider themselves experienced in DCS, or are real pilots, forget that there are basic things to be learned.  The people in this thread alreadt know how to fly patterns, do radio navigation, fly at night, instrument approach, drop a bomb, etc, but if you were completely new to it, it would likely be easier to start with something simpler than a Tomcat or a Phantom.  Even the F-5 could be overwhelming to someone compIetely new.  I imagine there are people that don't even know what the flaps are for!  I didn't say a trainer aircraft is "necessary" for a video game, but traditionally one starts with arithmetic before algebra, don't they?  There is certainly nothing wrong, and probably everything right, with someone sending themselves through a simulated "real" training pipeline with the appropriate level of complexity at each stage, stepping up to more complexity in increments, instead of just being overwhelmed.

When I got the A-10C on sale many years ago, I knew completely nothing about aircraft. Zero. Yeah I didn’t know what flaps were for or my HSI from my ADI But it’s all there for you to read about in the manual or the multitude of tutorial videos and such. The trouble with getting a trainer module is that it’s simply another aircraft to learn. So it’s not a good use of time IMO. All those things mentioned above can be learned in one of the combat aircraft. And in a combat game like this most players are probably interested in that first and stuff like flying patterns later. Again this isn’t real life so you can approach this in any way you like. 

Edited February 19 by SharpeXB

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

A dual cockpit trainer isn’t necessary.

No, but it helps. Two cockpits mean you don't need an external app like Discord, and you can both have your controls hooked up to the plane, letting the instructor take over the controls (you can do this in the F-4 and F-15, but these are complex beasts). The L-39 (dunno about others) even has an IFR hood, which is useful for, wouldn't you guess, learning IFR. 

Yes, you can learn in a combat aircraft, the thing is, there are things that are just easier to understand in a trainer. Most combat aircraft we have are equipped with various flight assists and have a lot of power available to compensate for your lousy flying, and navigate by GPS. Take away all that, any you start learning. Not just flying, but airmanship. You have to learn to navigate by map, landmarks and ADF. You find out why the overhead pattern exists. You learn to read the dials, not just HUD numbers. You learn to precisely control airspeed, dive angle and pipper position in order to bomb accurately. Sure, you can go out of your way to learn those things in a modern jet, but in a trainer, they're necessary.

If you only ever intend to fly modern aircraft with GPS and all the aids, and aren't really interested in airmanship, then by all means, start with the modern jets. However, learning to bomb the F-5 or L-39 is useful for refining your ground attack technique with CCIP, while radio navigation and reading dials are useful skills in older jets (yes, you can learn that there, but something like the Phantom is a quirky, complex beast). Those skills also come up if you make a jump to WWII. There's value in those less capable jets, too, and their switchology is quite easy to learn.

[SharpeXB]

5 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Most combat aircraft we have are equipped with various flight assists and have a lot of power available to compensate for your lousy flying, and navigate by GPS.

That’s true of the modern 4th Gen stuff in DCS but not other combat modules like the F-86. Such things are not just the realm of “trainers” per se. And the WWII birds offer some very challenging flight training. 
Honestly I get the impression that the trainers in DCS are really the realm of the avid players who simply want lots of modules, not necessarily beginners. Those people will just go straight for the aircraft that interests them. 

[Ornithopter]

Quote

Again this isn’t real life so you can approach this in any way you like. 

I think most people would agree with this, generally, although a step ladder approach to learning would be preferable to many.  Re-reading the original post, he is primarily talking about the Yak-52, which has no weapons, therefore he questions it's usefullness and playability.  That's a personal choice (many enjoy flying a GA airplane in MSFS, where there is no combat at all).  Since Combat is DCS' middle name, it's understandable that one might not be interested in non-combat aircraft.  But let's keep in mind that the MB-339, C-101, the L-39, and even the Mirage F1BE, are also fully combat capable.  There are all kinds of combat scenarios that these aircraft can fit into.  You can strafe trucks, drop bombs the old-fashioned way, and you can dogfight with guns or IR missiles.  If playing online, an optional human player in the back seat obvoiusly doesn't have to be an instructor of any kind; They can act as WSO, Navigator, a FAC, or just a buddy along for the ride to chit chat.  It's really all up to the imagination.

Edited February 19 by Ornithopter

[Dragon1-1]

25 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And the WWII birds offer some very challenging flight training. 

Yeah, so challenging that they're bad for first time flyers for this very reason. I really wouldn't recommend starting one's adventure with taildraggers from DCS WWII birds, especially for a complete newcomer. TF-51 is free, so it's one way to do it, but only if one is not easily frustrated. Quite frankly, for WWII birds, I'd suggest starting with the Piper Cub in the civilian sim. Less torque, actual forward visibility, gentle and slow in all phases of flight. Only attempt to tame one of the fighters after understanding the fundamental principles of taking off and landing in a taildragger.

The F-86 is actually quite comparable to the trainers in capabilities and ease of flying. It can be a good choice for a starting jet if you don't care for dual cockpit in MP. However, it's an old module, and it has some quirks. For those who don't care for Korea, it'll be same difference.

Edited February 19 by Dragon1-1

[SharpeXB]

30 minutes ago, Ornithopter said:

I think most people would agree with this, generally, although a step ladder approach to learning would be preferable to many.

Sure, it’s just the “step ladder” you follow out of sheer necessity in real life has very little relevance or meaning in a game. I would find it really funny if I ever took real life flying lessons because what I’ve learned over the years of sim playing is so “out of sequence”. Like taking a class you already sat through pieces of. But that’s n not my goal here. This is a game. 

30 minutes ago, Ornithopter said:

But let's keep in mind that the MB-339, C-101, the L-39, and even the Mirage F1BE, are also fully combat capable.

 Well sorta. I don’t have any of these but I assume they don’t have defensive systems and really limited weapons. They could be used effectively against unarmed insurgents or something but that’s probably all. 

9 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Yeah, so challenging that they're bad for first time flyers for this very reason.

Define “bad”? Ok so just crash and burn until you get it right. It’s just a game. In the real world no novice pilot would just go straight to a P-51 to learn how to fly. This isn’t real. My first “flight training” was in WWI sim crates and I crashed a lot

Edited February 19 by SharpeXB

[Dragon1-1]

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Define “bad”? Ok so just crash and burn until you get it right.

...or until you quit in frustration. People don't play a game to crash and burn, especially when they don't get much feedback on why they're crashing and burning. That's the problem, you're advocating figuring things out by trial and error, but that's not a good way to learn, and you can end up with bad habits that'll hobble you further on, just because it was the first thing you stumbled upon that seemed to work.

Learning with a less powerful plane allows you to get a feel for this type of aircraft at a slower pace, and with a less demanding airframe. This is more conductive to developing an understanding and building good flying habits. Same with learning on modern jets, quite a few things there work on the basis of "press the magic button, a magic thing happens". Understanding what goes behind this can be really useful. Especially when you one day press the button and the magic thing suddenly doesn't happen. It can be the difference between flipping the switch you forgot to flip and carrying on, and posting a bogus bug report on ED forums.

13 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Well sorta. I don’t have any of these but I assume they don’t have defensive systems and really limited weapons. They could be used effectively against unarmed insurgents or something but that’s probably all. 

It'd be very polite of those insurgents to go into battle unarmed.  As a matter of fact, one of the L-39 variants that come with the module is actually a COIN jet developed from it. Those missions can be fun, too. Yes, defensive systems on those aircraft are similar to F-86, which is to say, you get your eyeballs, the stick, and the throttle lever, plus whatever armament you have strapped on. That's a valuable lesson to learn, too. Not getting shot down begins with good attack planning, keeping a good lookout, and effective defensive maneuvering if engaged. If you can't survive using just that, perhaps you need to fly a few missions in a trainer.  

[SharpeXB]

42 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

or until you quit in frustration.

The gaming world is full of difficulty, I think most players are wiling to put in some effort. I very much doubt most new players buy training aircraft out of necessity. I would bet most of the people who own these are actually the enthusiast type. 

49 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It'd be very polite of those insurgents to go into battle unarmed.

Ok fair enough. I should say “without significant air defenses”. The trainer aircraft would not be very survivable against a peer adversary. No doubt the only role they could have in real combat would be COIN.