The significance of trainer aircraft in DCS

[Beirut]

6 hours ago, draconus said:

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.

 

That!

 

I spend as much time just flying for fun and I do flying for death and destruction. Whether the F-15E or the Hornet has a whack o' bombs on it or not, they're great fun to fly.

[draconus]

7 hours ago, Beirut said:

Whether the F-15E or the Hornet has a whack o' bombs on it or not, they're great fun to fly.

Well, they fly a lot better without bombs... pity

[dcn]

17小时前，draconus说：

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.

Maybe I made a mistake buying a Yak-52 without a real life flight instructor.

16小时前，virgo47说：

Yak-52... ok, let's not talk about it - perhaps it will once be what was promised.

I'm mainly talking about Yak-52.

13小时前，Eugel说：

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.

If there had never been trainer aircraft in DCS, I don't think I would be like this. Since DCS provides trainer aircraft, so I started to think, can I use trainer aircraft in DCS to do what real-life trainer aircraft does, that is, seriously learn real-life flight from scratch in a systematic way, but I failed, there is no real life flight instructor to teach me real life flight. Most DCS players have not received real life flight training, they can't fly airplanes in real life, but they can fly fighter in DCS and even become 'masters'. Many people have played flight simulations for many years but don't know how to turn correctly. The way they turn is just, roll, then pull the stick. They don't know what coordinated flying is. They start flying fighter without even learning how to turn correctly, but in real life, you have to start with trainer aircraft before you can fly a fighter.

Edited February 22 by dcn

[freehand]

14 minutes ago, dcn said:

Maybe I made a mistake buying a Yak-52 without a real life flight instructor.

I'm mainly talking about Yak-52.

If there had never been trainer aircraft in DCS, I don't think I would be like this. Since DCS provides trainer aircraft, so I started to think, can I use trainer aircraft in DCS to do what real-life trainer aircraft does, that is, seriously learn real-life flight from scratch in a systematic way, but I failed, there is no real life flight instructor to teach me real life flight. Most DCS players have not received real life flight training, they can't fly airplanes in real life, but they can fly fighter in DCS and even become 'masters'. Many people have played flight simulations for many years but don't know how to turn correctly. The way they turn is just, roll, then pull the stick. They don't know what coordinated flying is. They start flying fighter without even learning how to turn correctly, but in real life, you have to start with trainer aircraft before you can fly a fighter.

I have no idea what your talking about is this a wish list post ?  

[Dragon1-1]

On 2/21/2025 at 1:35 AM, 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.

I don't know about the Yak-52 (it's a bit of an oddball, anyway) or the others, but the L-39's training missions, and the Kursant campaign, are based on real courses. Of course, this is oldtimey Soviet military flight school, but it does teach good techniques.

33 minutes ago, dcn said:

They start flying fighter without even learning how to turn correctly, but in real life, you have to start with trainer aircraft before you can fly a fighter.

A succession of trainer aircraft, even. A typical jet won't teach you about coordinated flying, since it's mostly automated nowadays. Even the F-5 is generally flown with feet off the pedals. Of course, to appreciate how great a feature it is, you need to fly a simpler prop plane. Most trainers in DCS are for preparing you for tactical flying and a transition to fighters, not teaching basic principles of flight. Yak-52 is the sole exception, but it seems to be rather neglected by ED.

33 minutes ago, dcn said:

Maybe I made a mistake buying a Yak-52 without a real life flight instructor.

Given its state, you probably made a mistake buying the Yak-52, period. As a module, it's unfinished and ED doesn't seem to care much about it. With modern quality training missions, it could be a wonderful introduction to aviation for DCS, but as of now, it's old and unloved.

Edited February 22 by Dragon1-1

[Art-J]

5 hours ago, freehand said:

I have no idea what your talking about is this a wish list post ?  

I think he means each trainer plane in DCS would be more fun and useful if it featured an equivalent of L-39 Kursant campaign from the get go. Campaign which by the means of strict waypoint and action triggers brute-forces you to learn basic airmanship skills and maintaint their consistency. I kind of agree with that. 

I've been playing sims from 1990's, but I'll honestly admit I still can't do consistent and proper landing patterns or ground attack profiles in any of them, everything I do is based on feel and eyeballing rather than following established procedures. Eyeballing still works allright but surely doesn't make me a good virtual pilot.

Bought the Kursant campaign long ago to motivate myself to improve but still can't find enough spare time to learn my -39 thoroughly and complete the campaign . But that's another problem altogether.

[virgo47]

48 minutes ago, Art-J said:

I've been playing sims from 1990's, but I'll honestly admit I still can't do consistent and proper landing patterns or ground attack profiles in any of them, everything I do is based on feel and eyeballing rather than following established procedures. Eyeballing still works allright but surely doesn't make me a good virtual pilot.

And I was afraid it's just me. Such a relief to hear that. Of course I'm practicing (Kursant or online with guys), but oftentimes I look at the instruments in horror, not feeling the plane, they all change so quickly. It's slowly getting better after a few years. But, after all, it is also a game. Sometimes I sweat it, sometimes I don't.

[ThePops]

On 2/20/2025 at 2:25 AM, dcn said:

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

He he. Well, not a single person today purchases a real Yak-52 for the purpose of learning how to fly  They are all purchased to fly aerobatics and for general fooling around in. In that sense the DCS Yak-52 and the real Yak-52 fill the exact same purposes  Which is also ironic of course.

[MAXsenna]

3 hours ago, Art-J said:

I think he means each trainer plane in DCS would be more fun and useful if it featured an equivalent of L-39 Kursant campaign from the get go. Campaign which by the means of strict waypoint and action triggers brute-forces you to learn basic airmanship skills and maintaint their consistency.

Same here. They could have opted to even the raise the price USD 10 or so if such a campaign had been included. Though some of the training missions and included missions in the C-101 are very good. Not sure why not all modules includes similar ones. 

3 hours ago, Art-J said:

but I'll honestly admit I still can't do consistent and proper landing patterns or ground attack profiles in any of them, everything I do is based on feel and eyeballing rather than following established procedures. Eyeballing still works allright but surely doesn't make me a good virtual pilot.

Guilty as charged here as well. Helicopters on the other hand... 

One thing I'll say about the trainers. They deserve a force feedback base. 

@Dragon1-1 Both the MB-339 and the C-101 comes with a hood. 

[SharpeXB]

15 hours ago, dcn said:

Many people have played flight simulations for many years but don't know how to turn correctly. The way they turn is just, roll, then pull the stick. They don't know what coordinated flying is.

It sounds like you already know how to fly so why do you need instruction? When I started playing these games I didn’t know how to turn either but I learned. 

15 hours ago, dcn said:

but in real life, you have to start with trainer aircraft before you can fly a fighter.

But this isn’t real life. The reasons trainer aircraft exist in real life don’t exist in a game. 

15 hours ago, dcn said:

there is no real life flight instructor to teach me real life flight.

But there is. There’s no shortage of information available out there for this. You can teach yourself. Nobody would try to teach themselves to fly a plane in real life but this isn’t real. If you screw up just press Esc and try again. 

[PawlaczGMD]

I have 0 problem with trainers being in the game. Some people might just love the aircraft, want to roleplay, or use the second seat with someone. That's great.

Personally, I don't have any and for me they don't offer much value. I learned jets on the F-5 which as I understand is very close to what the USAF use in their training, but single seat. It is also a viable combat jet with some campaigns to play.

In DCS, trainers have next to no combat value, are not viable in any MP setting, and there are 0 official campaigns for them. I'm sure they're fun to fly, but so are combat jets. Now, if there was a quality campaign where you go through a realistic training and they actually teach you stuff, that would be more interesting. As is, I'd rather buy another combat a/c I don't have.

[dcn]

2025/2/22 AM10点03分，Dragon1-1说：

I don't know about the Yak-52 (it's a bit of an oddball, anyway) or the others, but the L-39's training missions, and the Kursant campaign, are based on real courses. Of course, this is oldtimey Soviet military flight school, but it does teach good techniques.

The course I mean is seriously learn real-life flight from scratch in a systematic way.

2025/2/22 AM10点03分，Dragon1-1说：

Given its state, you probably made a mistake buying the Yak-52, period. As a module, it's unfinished and ED doesn't seem to care much about it. With modern quality training missions, it could be a wonderful introduction to aviation for DCS, but as of now, it's old and unloved.

Can't agree more.

2025/2/22 PM3点23分，Art-J说：

I think he means each trainer plane in DCS would be more fun and useful if it featured an equivalent of L-39 Kursant campaign from the get go. Campaign which by the means of strict waypoint and action triggers brute-forces you to learn basic airmanship skills and maintaint their consistency. I kind of agree with that. 

I think trainer aircraft in DCS should provide real life flight courses. I did not buy Kursant campaign, but I think it should not be able to provide real life flight courses I want.

2025/2/22 PM6点49分，ThePops说：

He he. Well, not a single person today purchases a real Yak-52 for the purpose of learning how to fly  They are all purchased to fly aerobatics and for general fooling around in. In that sense the DCS Yak-52 and the real Yak-52 fill the exact same purposes  Which is also ironic of course.

You are talking about private purchases, which are a minority. I believe that private purchasers already have a pilot's license, so they will not buy a real Yak-52 to learn to fly.

23小时前，SharpeXB说：

It sounds like you already know how to fly

Well,I just gave an example of how to turn. I think I am still far from being able to fly a real plane.

[dcn]

23小时前，SharpeXB说：

But this isn’t real life. The reasons trainer aircraft exist in real life don’t exist in a game. 

This is what makes me feel conflicted. If there were no trainer aircraft in DCS, I would play fighters in a game way. But DCS provides trainer aircraft, which makes me think that ED wants us to treat simulated flight from the perspective of real life flight.

23小时前，SharpeXB说：

But there is. There’s no shortage of information available out there for this. You can teach yourself. Nobody would try to teach themselves to fly a plane in real life but this isn’t real. If you screw up just press Esc and try again. 

One thing that I am dissatisfied with is that the manual of trainer aircraft in DCS does not provide detailed instructions on how to fly, such as how to turn correctly.I have to find the information myself

Edited February 23 by dcn

[SharpeXB]

2 minutes ago, dcn said:

One thing that I am dissatisfied with is that the manual of trainer aircraft in DCS does not provide detailed instructions on how to fly, such as how to turn correctly.

I hate to put it this way but the other civy flight sim games have better training missions in them. Yeah it’s a bit illogical for a trainer not to have something like this. 

[Ornithopter]

1 hour ago, dcn said:

This is what makes me feel conflicted. If there were no trainer aircraft in DCS, I would play fighters in a game way. But DCS provides trainer aircraft, which makes me think that ED wants us to treat simulated flight from the perspective of real life flight.

One thing that I am dissatisfied with is that the manual of trainer aircraft in DCS does not provide detailed instructions on how to fly, such as how to turn correctly.I have to find the information myself

So SharpeXB is arguing that eveyone should just jump into planes such as the A-10C because that's how he did it, therefore planes like the Yak-52 (or even the jet trainers) have no purpose.  I'll totally agree that there is a wealth of training materials out there in the world.  But you, DCN, are arguing that you need an airplane to teach you such things as the ability to "turn correctly".  Whether the included tutorials are up to the task of not, isn't the Yak-52 the appropriate plane for you to be able to practice those basic skills??  If you're at that level of skill, wouldn't you want to learn to fly the simple stuff in a basic airplane?  If you truly think the trainers are worthless, then sure, go jump straight in to one of the airplanes with the biggest learning curves in the game!!!  On the positive side, a plane such as the A-10C is very "easy" to fly.  But not as easy to work the nav systems or weapons systems.  You might even be so sharp that you'll be rattling off Mavericks and working with Bullseyes and SPIs in no time,lol!  But keep in mind, none of the tutorials for those more advanced aircraft will teach you basic airmanship, any better than the trainers.  I truly think you will be a much better flight simulator pilot if you learn the basics of flight in a simpler aircraft.  I'm talking simple stick and rudder stuff.

If I was coming to flight sim brand new, I probably wouldn't have picked DCS as the very first one, but if that's all I had, and those training aircraft had existed back then in DCS, I would have definitely taken advantage of them.  I'm glad they exist now, because it helps me even now to go back to the simple stuff, instead of being one of those HUD-zombies or capable of doing nothing more than following a magenta line.  It's amazing how bad one's skills can slip when you're never doing any more than just putting a velocity vector on a virtual horizon line on the HUD.

 

Edited February 23 by Ornithopter

[SharpeXB]

The thing here is you guys are projecting your experience as advanced players onto new players and in hindsight. I very much doubt that many people begin playing flight simulator games literally following the training path they would in the real world. I doubt many of you actually did either. That’s ok because this is a game!

Edited February 23 by SharpeXB

[draconus]

12 hours ago, PawlaczGMD said:

In DCS, trainers have next to no combat value, are not viable in any MP setting, and there are 0 official campaigns for them.

You're wrong on all three points. There may be not much but enough for players to enjoy.

3 hours ago, dcn said:

But DCS provides trainer aircraft, which makes me think that ED wants us to treat simulated flight from the perspective of real life flight.

There was never such intention. You are offered a good simulation of an aircraft for entertainment only. DCS is not made to hold your hand. You can use it to learn a lot of airmanship aspects but not all of them. You technically could flight a real deal but you will still have to learn IRL and get license.

[Beirut]

4 hours ago, dcn said:

This is what makes me feel conflicted. If there were no trainer aircraft in DCS, I would play fighters in a game way. But DCS provides trainer aircraft, which makes me think that ED wants us to treat simulated flight from the perspective of real life flight.

 

I think ED just wants us to enjoy flying the planes to a degree that makes us stay engaged with the sim. And that works for me.

 

I have lots of DCS planes of all kinds and have never done a cold start in any of them. Not once. Probably never will. It's not on my fun list so I'm not doing it. And ED knows there are people like me buying planes who aren't interested in cold starts and shut downs so they have "cheat keys" for easy starts and stops. The point is that the sim is built for a wide variety of flying types.  

 

"Here's a plane. Do with it as you will and have as much fun as you can."  Again, that works for me.

 

4 hours ago, dcn said:

One thing that I am dissatisfied with is that the manual of trainer aircraft in DCS does not provide detailed instructions on how to fly, such as how to turn correctly.I have to find the information myself

 

Fortunately you live in the information age. There's a marvelous thing out there called "The Interweb". And if you can get your hands on a computer, you can access it and get all the information you will ever require. It's really quite something.

[Ornithopter]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

The thing here is you guys are projecting your experience as advanced players onto new players and in hindsight. I very much doubt that many people begin playing flight simulator games literally following the training path they would in the real world. I doubt many of you actually did either. That’s ok because this is a game!

I'm going to guess that some of non real pilots in this thread started doing flight simulation with some version of MSFS flying Cessnas and learning how to do the very very basics, before DCS even existed.  As with a musical intrument, most people benefit from playing scales before they play a Zeppelin song.  Don't assume that everyone just jumped into some complex aircraft like you claim to, without having a significant amount of prior knowledge and skill.

If you started with one of the most system-wise complex aircraft in DCS not "knowing what the flaps are for", that's great.  Congratulations. There is something to be said about jumping into the deep end of the pool to learn to swim. But I'll bet there are a heck of a lot of things you don't know compared to virtual pilots who started with simpler airplanes, in simpler sims, and possibly decades before you.

The original poster wanted to learn how to "fly" in a flight simulator, acquiring the basic skills comparable to what a real pilot might learn.  His main problem seems to be that there is not enough tutorial material provided with the so-called training airplanes (of which he appears to only have the Yak-52).  As you point out, there is an abundance of tutorial material on the internet or in books, so that's his problem--you get out of flight simulator what you put into it. Regardless of the tutorial quality of some of these airplanes, some posters in this thread are simply suggesting that easier training aircraft can be useful, starting with something simple and working your way up.  For someone brand new, there is something to be said about a very stable airplane with little more than a stick, a rudder, a throttle, and a 6 pack of traditional gauges.  As I said before, you've stated that you don't actually own any of the DCS trainer aircraft, so therefore you really don't have any idea what you didn't learn from them, or their provided tutorials.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Ornithopter said:

I'm going to guess that some of non real pilots in this thread started doing flight simulation with some version of MSFS flying Cessnas and learning how to do the very very basics, before DCS even existed.

Possible. They could also come to this from just about anywhere or any game. It really doesn’t matter. A game doesn’t need to same approach to learning it as real life because there are no real life consequences to what you do.  
If a friend who was interested in DCS asked you want a good first module to get might be, would you seriously tell them to get a trainer so they’d be a “better pilot”? That would sure get a laugh

Edited February 23 by SharpeXB

[Ornithopter]

25 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Possible. They could also come to this from just about anywhere or any game. It really doesn’t matter. A game doesn’t need to same approach to learning it as real life because there are no real life consequences to what you do.  
If a friend who was interested in DCS asked you want a good first module to get might be, would you seriously tell them to get a trainer so they’d be a “better pilot”? That would sure get a laugh

I would suggest your brand new to flight simming friend get the C-101 and the Flaming Cliffs 2024 module.  If they want to learn the basics of flying, since they're so new, they can learn on the C-101.  If they want to fly an F-15 or even an F-5 in easy mode, they can do that too.   They can even do Brrrrt in the A-10A.

And you would suggest they fly, what? The Thunderbolt II?  A non-flight-simming buddy that has what kind of hardware?  Is he going to buy a Thrustmaster Warthog right off the bat?  As you say, "That would be sure to get a laugh."  If they have a different level of experience on the other hand, like years of flight simming behind them, that's a different matter entirely..

The op suggested that he wanted to learn more real world piloting stuff.  If all he wanted was a very complex video game, then I doubt he would have made this topic.

Quit pointing out that there are no real world consequences to crashing in a flight sim.  No kidding?  Do you think we are all that stupid?  I'm just saying it's a matter of whether you are actually as good at your video game as you think you are!

Edited February 23 by Ornithopter

[Beirut]

41 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

  
If a friend who was interested in DCS asked you want a good first module to get might be, would you seriously tell them to get a trainer so they’d be a “better pilot”? That would sure get a laugh

 

I would suggest they buy an FC plane as an inexpensive way to see if they enjoy the sim. Either the F-15C or the A-10A, depending if they prefer A2G or A2A. Get it on sale for $10 and you're going to have a lot of fun for not a lot of money. 

 

I would never suggest a trainer just because it's a trainer. You're right, that would be ridiculous.

[SharpeXB]

41 minutes ago, Ornithopter said:

I would suggest your brand new to flight simming friend get the C-101 and the Flaming Cliffs 2024 module. 

Actually the person in question got the F-14 and maybe the F-18. They’re 14 years old and can figure it all out. It’s just not so difficult.

41 minutes ago, Ornithopter said:

Quit pointing out that there are no real world consequences to crashing in a flight sim.  No kidding?

Yeah this should be abundantly obvious yet to keep advocating for some baby steps approach to learning a game implies that there is. That’s why this discussion is so silly. 

9 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 

I would suggest they buy an FC plane as an inexpensive way to see if they enjoy the sim. Either the F-15C or the A-10A, depending if they prefer A2G or A2A. Get it on sale for $10 and you're going to have a lot of fun for not a lot of money. 

 

I would never suggest a trainer just because it's a trainer. You're right, that would be ridiculous.

Most people coming to a combat game I think would find realistic pilot training to just be dull. Personally my recommendation was the Hornet because it’s the most complete of the 4th gen modules and I know how to teach it to someone really. They didn’t need my help in any case. Telling them to get a trainer would just be laughable. 

Edited February 24 by SharpeXB

[Beirut]

11 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Most people coming to a combat game I think would find realistic pilot training to just be dull. Personally my recommendation was the Hornet because it’s the most complete of the 4th gen modules and I know how to teach it to someone really. They didn’t need my help in any case. Telling them to get a trainer would just be laughable. 

 

Yeah, the Hornet would be a great first module.

 

My suggestion for an FC plane was for an inexpensive taste test. I just checked and I bought the A-10A and the F-15C the same day back in 2017. I got the BRRRRTTTT! and the speed for a low price. I think that's a great start.

[Ornithopter]

Start with a FBW aircraft for the "Ab Initio" training, so you can master basic skills?  OK, whatever works for an individual brain....