The significance of trainer aircraft in DCS

Dragon1-1 · February 19

Just now, SharpeXB said:

The gaming world is full of difficulty, I think most players are wiling to put in some effort.

You'd be wrong, especially these days. Really, we've got it good in DCS, in that people here are somewhat willing to learn the ropes. Gaming world at large?

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

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.

Duh, that's why it's a trainer and COIN aircraft. Doesn't change the fact it can dodge flak just fine, can avoid SAMs (if the pilot knows where they are) and can terrain mask. With proper support and planning, you can use it against a peer adversary. You just have to actually do all the things you should be doing when planning an A-10 mission more interesting than a standoff JDAM/LGB/Mav truck.

ThePops · February 19

9 hours ago, dcn said:

but its playability is too low

What is that supposed to mean? What's cool with DCS is we have a relatively large variety of aircraft to chose from. I think people purchasing the Yak-52 does not do it because they "need" a trainer of any kind, but simply because they like the Yak-52, and perhaps have flown one for real. The DCS version is also a very good simulation of the plane.

If by playability you mean dogfighting or dropping bombs (like you would do in a digital combat simulator), then you are right

SharpeXB · February 19

30 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

You'd be wrong, especially these days. Really, we've got it good in DCS, in that people here are somewhat willing to learn the ropes. Gaming world at large?

If the idea is that these trainers attract beginners, I can’t imagine that’s the case. I think the new player is going to go straight for what excites or interests them in an aircraft. Chances are that’s not some obscure trainer, it’s going to be an F-16 or such. They likely wouldn’t buy a $60 module with a 300 page manual just to train for flying another module. Again the reasons that trainers exist in the real world don’t apply here so there’s no real purpose to that path.
It’s possible that these trainers found their way into DCS because ED has industry partners that wanted them. That I could see. But I don’t think they were put into the game to literally train players.

Dragon1-1 · February 19

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

If the idea is that these trainers attract beginners, I can’t imagine that’s the case.

This part was in response of you suggesting starting with a WWII plane. For that particular case, DCS doesn't even have a decent trainer. The F-16 is really easy to fly. The Spit? Only as long as you don't try to take off, land, or fight in it (and even then, you need to know about trim). In fact, WWII fighters in general, for someone coming from less realistic titles, will be a struggle. DCS could use a taildragger that won't try to kill you before you're even off the ground, which is to say something like the O-1E.

I think the L-39 might have been intended as a sort-of entry point, being the original trainer module. Most people pass it over, but I do think a trainer it can make you a better pilot if you put your mind to it.

SharpeXB · February 19

11 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

This part was in response of you suggesting starting with a WWII plane.

There have been plenty of WWII flight sim games over the years where people jump into these as their first sim plane. They all figure it out.

Dragon1-1 · February 19

Yes, and none of them are quite as unforgiving as DCS is. Try the Spitfire in the other WWII sim, then in DCS, and you'll see. Remember, that other WWII sim was (or rather, its predecessor), for a long time, the benchmark for realism in flight simulation in general, not just WWII. That was the best we had. They also start you with a very docile Yak-1 or LaGG-3. While people coming over from that sim will fare better than a complete rookie, DCS doesn't simplify low speed handling like their previous one does, plus it models prop torque, a major omission in practically every other WWII sim.

From personal experience, I couldn't figure out how to avoid ground-looping the Spit on every landing until I went back to basics and to less powerful planes. Still a handful, but at least I can land straight. And I was hardly a rookie when I started tackling it. Others are more forgiving (mostly because they have tailwheel locks), but only just, except the Mossie, which is even meaner if mishandled.

dcn · February 20

11小时前，unlikely_spider说：

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.

I may not have expressed myself clearly enough.In DCS trainer aircraft, you don't have a detailed aircraft tutorial like in real life, and there is no real life flight instructor to teach you everything about real life flying. There are many people who have played flight simulation for many years and don't know how to turn correctly, they don't know what coordinated flying is. This is missing in DCS, and there is no real life flight teaching in the game manual.Even the best player in DCS, when he starts to learn to fly in real life, he needs to start with a trainer aircraft, and he will still find a lot of knowledge that he has never learned. Of course, you can find a lot of courses about real life flying on the Internet, but this is far from enough. Self-study often cannot achieve the effect of professional teachers. And without the combination of theory and practice, DCS flying cannot replace real life flying.

11小时前，SharpeXB说：

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.

What I want to say is that even though I bought three trainer aircraft in DCS, I still can't fly a plane in real life.No one teaches me real life flight. I could certainly learn by myself, but the effect of self-study is always not as good as that of professional teachers. Even if you learn all the courses of real life flight by yourself and keep training in DCS trainer aircraft, you dare not say that you can fly a plane solo, for example,Yak-52 in real life.

11小时前，SharpeXB说：

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.

I don't know this,thank you!

10小时前，Hiob说：

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.

You are concerned about the Yak-52 itself, I am concerned about its function as a trainer.

11小时前，SharpeXB说：

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

Can't agree more.

5小时前，SharpeXB说：

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.

Yes, I bought them for my collection, my first DCS aircraft were WWII aircraft.I think almost no beginners buy trainer aircraft to get started with DCS.

Edited February 20 by dcn

Ornithopter · February 20

4 hours 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.

So you're saying that you don't even lift, bro? Full disclosure: I only have the C-101, but that's enough for me to weigh in on this discussion, isn't it? But how could you possibly be so vehement in your opinion about the value of these kinds of aircraft, if you don't even have any of them? If Aviodev ever gets the Sea Eagle cruise missile in order, I'll bet I could penetrate a wall of Zeroes, get in to the Japanese fleet, and sink the Shokaku with the C-101. You keep pointing out over and over that it's just a video game, so why such lack of imagination and rigid thinking when you ponitificate about the worth of such an airplane, and how others should value it?

Beirut · February 20

7 minutes ago, dcn said:

What I want to say is that even though I bought three trainer aircraft in DCS, I still can't fly a plane in real life.

And even though I keep landing at Bodo on the Kola map I bought in DCS, I still never wake up in Norway in real life.

dcn · February 20

3小时前，ThePops说：

I think people purchasing the Yak-52 does not do it because they "need" a trainer of any kind, but simply because they like the Yak-52, and perhaps have flown one for real.

That's it.It's ironic that the purpose of buying Yak-52 is not to learn how to fly.

3小时前，SharpeXB说：

But I don’t think they were put into the game to literally train players.

Agree.

Edited February 20 by dcn

Beirut · February 20

5 minutes ago, dcn said:

That's it.It's ironic that people don't buy Yak-52 to learn how to fly.

It's not ironic at all. People buy it to enjoy flying it. We read a review, watch some videos, and decide that the plane looks cool and might be fun. That's why I bought the Yak-52. It looked interesting and fun to fly.

SharpeXB · February 20

There is a lot that can be learned from computer simulation, real pilots train on them all the time. To the extent that the DCS modules simulate operation and systems they would be suitable for that type of training. Some apparently do get used for that.

I find it really astonishing the real life accidents where the cause was something a pilot could easily have learned or trained at on a computer. Literally they could have played MSFS and learned or practiced the stuff that they failed at.

Dragon1-1 · February 20

16 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I find it really astonishing the real life accidents where the cause was something a pilot could easily have learned or trained at on a computer. Literally they could have played MSFS and learned or practiced the stuff that they failed at.

The problem might be focusing too much on normal operations and not enough on emergencies and unusual scenarios. DCS is nice in that it throws you into a variety of situations, and if you get hit, you may have to deal with any number of failures. Some airlines do that, some decide to skimp on it, and pilots don't always fill that gap on their own accord.

SharpeXB · February 20

12 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The problem might be focusing too much on normal operations and not enough on emergencies and unusual scenarios. DCS is nice in that it throws you into a variety of situations, and if you get hit, you may have to deal with any number of failures. Some airlines do that, some decide to skimp on it, and pilots don't always fill that gap on their own accord.

Some accidents are just pilot error at really dumb simple stuff. It’s rather astonishing. Things like simple navigation you could literally learn playing a game. There are some where the pilots don’t seem to even know how to operate the airplane or its systems. Not sure how someone so incompetent ends up piloting a $5 million plane with passengers. Kinda incredible. Stuff you coulda learned playing MSFS. It’s surprising more pilots don’t seem to avail themselves of all the computer simulation that’s available. And I don’t mean just these games. Like Garmin makes desktop trainer software for their GPS systems. Why wouldn’t you practice on that instead of in your plane and fail? That seems crazy. Yes commercial pilots train regularly on sims but GA pilots don’t seem to enough when they could be.

Dragon1-1 · February 20

22 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Not sure how someone so incompetent ends up piloting a $5 million plane with passengers.

Usually, by having $5M to spend on the plane, plus change for the license to fly it. If you're the kind of person who throws $5M around, passengers are easy to come by, too.

GA is a miscellaneous lot, you have people who take flying seriously, and them you have those for whom the plane is just a status symbol and a fun toy. The latter are unlikely to invest in learning how to properly operate it in all but the simplest situations. Avoidable goofs are bad in commercial airlines, but as far as GA goes, the only universal standard is having the money. In theory, the pilots' license is supposed to indicate basic competence, but the same can be said of driver's licenses.

Edited February 20 by Dragon1-1

dcn · February 21

21小时前，SharpeXB说：

There is a lot that can be learned from computer simulation, real pilots train on them all the time.

I am not a real pilot. Buying a Yak-52 won't teach me real life flight. Maybe ED should release a real life flight course bundle with Yak-52.

Edited February 21 by dcn

SharpeXB · February 21

14 minutes ago, dcn said:

I am not a real pilot. Buying a Yak-52 won't teach me real life flight. Maybe ED should release a real life flight course bundle with Yak-52.

If by “real flight” you mean something more akin to real world general aviation stuff. The civy sims all do a pretty good job with that. There are even virtual flying school add ons which are quite good.

Edited February 21 by SharpeXB

dcn · February 21

20分钟前，SharpeXB说：

If by “real flight” you mean something more akin to real world general aviation stuff. The civy sims all do a pretty good job with that. There are even virtual flying school add ons which are quite good.

I don't know about other games, I'm talking about DCS. ED gave us a trainer aircraft, but didn't offer us real life courses. Imagine you have never learned real life flight and you bought a Yak-52 in real life, but there is no flight instructor to teach you, you have to learn it by yourself.

Edited February 21 by dcn

SharpeXB · February 21

33 minutes ago, dcn said:

I don't know about other games, I'm talking about DCS. ED gave us a trainer aircraft, but didn't offer us real life courses. Imagine you have never learned real life flight and you bought a Yak-52 in real life, but there is no flight instructor to teach you, you have to learn it by yourself.

Check out some WWII training films. They are quite applicable for a prop plane like that. Except that it’s not a tail wheel type.
These are excellent:

dcn · February 21

18分钟前，SharpeXB说：

Check out some WWII training films. They are quite applicable for a prop plane like that. Except that it’s not a tail wheel type.
These are excellent:

Thanks for the video. I actually have some English flight training manuals, but I'm not a native English speaker and I don't think self-learning is very effective.

draconus · February 21

7 hours ago, dcn said:

I don't know about other games, I'm talking about DCS. ED gave us a trainer aircraft, but didn't offer us real life courses. Imagine you have never learned real life flight and you bought a Yak-52 in real life, but there is no flight instructor to teach you, you have to learn it by yourself.

DCS offers you the simulated aircraft and environment to fly in. It comes with manual. Most come with training missions. Everything else is on the user to learn and you have plenty to choose from - forum to ask, videos to watch, RL instructors or just DCS instructors, paid or not.

Whether it's trainer aircraft or not - doesn't matter. You like it - you buy it and fly it. That's DCS World but nobody forces you to fight, bomb or shot. You don't even have to fly but that's not about it here.

There may be different reasons for why trainers are bought. Some simply like the aircraft. Some just want to support the devs. Some want to experience different type of play with some DLC campaign (like the Kursant for L-39) or MP. Some fly aerobatics only. There maybe also be some that want to replicate RL training process from basics to advanced skills, from low powered prop, through simple jet on to the final fighter jet type. You can have all that in DCS.

Edited February 21 by draconus

virgo47 · February 21

DCS training aircraft don't have so much 3rd party content, granted. There is just a single campaign for L-39. [EDIT C-101 has a built-in campaign as well.] But they mostly have some training missions. Otherwise I don't see much difference from other planes as I often hear that DCS is weak when it comes to the content (although there are many campaigns, but plains are covered unevenly, of course) and fun, so it's what you make of it.

My point is that whatever DCS is, training planes are just as much fun for many of us. L-39 was the first full-fidelity module I bought and I love it. C-101 is a great module as well. Yak-52... ok, let's not talk about it - perhaps it will once be what was promised. But even that one, I often hop in and fly around. Trainers are fun. They perform somewhere between props and heavier jets, don't fall off the sky immediately when you go low on power during landing, they kinda glide nicely. I like that difference.

Edited February 21 by virgo47

Rudel_chw · February 21

2 hours ago, virgo47 said:

DCS training aircraft don't have so much 3rd party content, granted. There is just a single campaign for L-39.

not to nitpick, but the c-101 has a built-in campaign too.

Eugel · February 21

On 2/19/2025 at 2:42 PM, dcn said:

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.

I think you might overestimate the purpose of DCS. It´s not meant to replace real life flight.
It´s meant for entertainment purposes, it´s a sandbox. I´m sure there are some user-made missions that resemble real life pilot training. If not, create your own.

AndyJWest · February 21

These days, the majority of real life military pilot training is done in simulators...

Sign In

The significance of trainer aircraft in DCS

Recommended Posts

Dragon1-1

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Hiob

portman

Hiob

ThePops

SharpeXB

Dragon1-1

SharpeXB

Dragon1-1

dcn

Ornithopter

Beirut

dcn

Beirut

SharpeXB

Dragon1-1

SharpeXB

Dragon1-1

dcn

SharpeXB

dcn

SharpeXB

dcn

draconus

virgo47

Rudel_chw

Eugel

AndyJWest

Recently Browsing 0 members