The significance of trainer aircraft in DCS

[draconus]

The DCS trainers are not for beginners These are not 1st level trainer aircraft - what you need is low powered prop like Cessna 150.

[ThePops]

14 hours ago, dcn said:

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.

I don't know of any transaction of Yak-52s today that aren't private. There are hundreds of them on private hands now. You seem to be of the opinion that the Yak-52 is only a trainer. That's not entirely correct. The Yak-52 is a 2 seat version of the earlier Yak-50. The Yak-50 is a single seat aerobatic aircraft. The Yak-52 was designed as a trainer and aerobatic aircraft in the Soviet era. Back then it was just as much a sport aircraft for Soviet competition aerobatic pilots as it was a trainer for the military. Clearly, in the west (or simply privately) it has no use as a military trainer, but is put to good use as an aerobatic aircraft. That's what it was designed for after all, a sport 2 seat aerobatic aircraft/aerobatic trainer.

DCS isn't reality, so all this is pretty moot in all sorts of ways  My point is simply that the Yak-52 is perhaps the best sport aerobatic aircraft ever made, anywhere. It got it all, the looks, the power and maneuverability, and least but not last, the sound. Not to mention the name, it's a Yak. It's also readily available, and doesn't even cost much in comparison to other much less capable aircraft. This is also why many people find it interesting in DCS, and the DCS version of it is a very good one. The trainer aspects of that aircraft is more or less irrelevant, other than perhaps the historical aspects.

It certainly could be used as a trainer in the correct sense of the word in DCS. But why? You can just press esc and start over again   

[Ala13_ManOWar]

4 hours ago, draconus said:

The DCS trainers are not for beginners These are not 1st level trainer aircraft - what you need is low powered prop like Cessna 150.

I'd be all in for that. C152-172 would be perfect, so T41 Mescalero for those wanting it to be a military aircraft .

[Beirut]

5 hours ago, draconus said:

The DCS trainers are not for beginners These are not 1st level trainer aircraft - what you need is low powered prop like Cessna 150.

 

Love to see a top rated sim prop, like the A2A Comanche, brought to DCS. I would absolutely grab it.

 

.

Edited February 24 by Beirut

[Dragon1-1]

2 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

I'd be all in for that. C152-172 would be perfect, so T41 Mescalero for those wanting it to be a military aircraft .

Perhaps more relevant would be the Cessna 170, aka. O-1 Birddog:

What with Vietnam era aircraft starting to trickle in. The O-1 was actually modified from the 170 somewhat, particularly the cabin shape, but they were otherwise similar, and the Birddog was a key FAC aircraft back in the day.

[dcn]

2025/2/24 AM12点55分，SharpeXB说：

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. 

The newly launched career mode seems good, but it may be a little far from the real life flight course I want.

2025/2/24 AM2点42分，Ornithopter说：

I'll totally agree that there is a wealth of training materials out there in the world.

There is another problem, 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.The DCS environment is different from real life.

2025/2/24 AM2点42分，Ornithopter说：

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?

You seem to think that turning correctly is too simple. What should be done to initiate the turn? Should I roll first or use rudder first, or do both at the same time? What should be done during the turn? What should be done to exit the turn? Should I roll first or use rudder first, or do both at the same time?

2025/2/24 AM6点04分，Beirut说：

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.

I have some English flight training manuals. I mean these are supposed to be provided by ED. And I think these are not easy to find, I mean the manuals used for flight training, not the manuals for flying a certain aircraft.

2025/2/24 AM6点06分，Ornithopter说：

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).

I said in my first reply in this topic that I have C-101,L-39 and Yak-52.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

18 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Perhaps more relevant would be the Cessna 170, aka. O-1 Birddog:

What with Vietnam era aircraft starting to trickle in. The O-1 was actually modified from the 170 somewhat, particularly the cabin shape, but they were otherwise similar, and the Birddog was a key FAC aircraft back in the day.

Yep, I'd totally be into a little bird dog, with the training possibilities plus Nam era missions. That'd be a blast.
 

Not to derail the discussion. To OP @dcn, yeah, well, DCS (or any other sim, but DCS is probably the best from a pure simulation PoV) can teach you lots of things, but flying in RL from scratch and solely using the simulator? Well, I can tell you my own experience. When DCSW started to be I happened to be getting my PPL license. Actually I had to "unlearn" some things I had "learned" in simulation, but not in DCS but the other 2001 old brand. Actually, I was flying by myself from start when I got to the school, and even in my baptism flight a friend of mine gifted to me which led to get my license, and that was all due to my simulator experience. BUT I clearly realized later I didn't actually knew how to properly fly only with the simulation, with my "simulator experience" I landed the aircraft incredibly smooth and nice from the very beginning for instance, turns out that's not how you properly land an aircraft due to RL considerations you don't mind in sims… But well, all the things you learn with simulations are nice and even the ground tests you have to pass to get the license were incredibly smooth, let's say I had half of it already learned from simulation and just pure aviation geekness. So yeah, it helps to some extent, you have to be careful though and not think you already know it all and it's enough because it's not since there are lots of things either that you don't learn in sims because you don't need to, practical things, knowledge of the machine, knowledge of the environment you fly in, but all of those and many more just aren't there and cannot be in a PC because they're useless, at least in our current PC environment.

Then when P-51D first came to be in 2012 I already had my license and was trying to solo in a C172RG, which I found terribly close in engine management to that P-51 (I liked better that first FM, to be honest) and ground handling despite the differences (tricycle vs tail dragger) were pretty close in inertias, the weight of the thing you feel, and all of that. Even the small C152 you learn in helped me a lot since you have to get ahead in the turns with your feet, to get into the turn and specially to stop the turn which happened to be how you had to manage P-51D back then!! In this case my license and RL experience helped me enjoy the Pony from the very beginning, but I'm not sure that sim experience would had helped me IRL had it happened the other way around and I had flown the P-51 sooner than I got my license. We'll never know anyway.
 

 

TL/DR - So, long story short, yes, you don't learn it all and from scratch to fly from a sim, but it helps a bit if you don't fool yourself thinking you're already a pilot and listen to your instructors trying to keep you alive.

But, aren't we all here for the fun of it? flying small planes and trainers is fun!! I like them in DCS because this environment gives the closest experience to RL with regards to physics and FM I know of, even though you aren't a pilot out of it, so what!! why not have them in DCS? Of course they're fun, and can help people in the proper hands if you have someone to help to start with all of it, so why not?

[dcn]

2025/2/24 AM5点05分，draconus说：

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.

I think trainer aircraft is used to learn to fly. ED provides it, so I should use it to learn to fly.If this is not possible, then ED may have made a mistake in releasing the Yak-52.

2025/2/24 AM6点04分，Beirut说：

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 think ED wants us to abandon the game mentality, calm down, re-examine flying, focus on the basics, and learn to fly from scratch.

[SharpeXB]

5 hours ago, dcn said:

The newly launched career mode seems good, but it may be a little far from the real life flight course I want.

Besides the career I was referring to just the basic training missions in the game. X-Plane has something similar along with some written material (the game has a free demo too). Check out the FlightInsight channel on YouTube, it’s pretty good. FS Academy for MSFS is great. That seems like more what you’re looking for. 

13 minutes ago, dcn said:

then ED may have made a mistake in releasing the Yak-52.

Well clearly this type of aircraft does not sell very well in a game like this devoted to combat. It’s still in EA after almost seven years. I hate to say the realm of non combat civil flying is better done and more appealing in other games. I’m not trying to get into game comparisons but that’s literally what those other games are about. DCS is a combat sim. 

[dcn]

2025/2/24 PM3点32分，draconus说：

The DCS trainers are not for beginners These are not 1st level trainer aircraft - what you need is low powered prop like Cessna 150.

Weren't Yak-52 used in the Soviet Union to train beginners? 

[draconus]

9 minutes ago, dcn said:

I think trainer aircraft is used to learn to fly. ED provides it, so I should use it to learn to fly.If this is not possible, then ED may have made a mistake in releasing the Yak-52.

I think ED wants us to abandon the game mentality, calm down, re-examine flying, focus on the basics, and learn to fly from scratch.

Again, they provide the aicraft simulation.  What you do with it is your own business. Yes, you can also learn how to fly but if you expect some kind of flying school from DCS developer, you're in for the disappointment.

[dcn]

2025/2/24 PM4点24分，ThePops说：

I don't know of any transaction of Yak-52s today that aren't private. There are hundreds of them on private hands now.

Well I didn't notice you said today, I'm not sure about today, but I believe in Soviet times they were mostly used to train pilots.

2025/2/24 PM4点24分，ThePops说：

You seem to be of the opinion that the Yak-52 is only a trainer.

I said at the beginning of this topic that Yak-52 can do aerobatics.

[dcn]

2025/2/24 PM4点24分，ThePops说：

The Yak-52 was designed as a trainer and aerobatic aircraft in the Soviet era.

That's what it was designed for after all, a sport 2 seat aerobatic aircraft/aerobatic trainer.

I don't think Yak-52 was designed as an aerobatic aircraft, even though it took into account the requirements of aerobatics during its design.

From DCS Yak-52 manual:

隐藏

Dear pilots!

We thank you for your purchase of the DCS: Yak-52 module. This module is a simulator of one of the most popular training aircraft in the USSR and post-Soviet states.

This module is our first foray into the world of training aircraft; as it is in real life, fledgling pilots will be able to begin their journey to the skies in a craft that is simple and easy to maneuver, while seasoned veterans will have at their disposal an elegant and beautiful aircraft for use in sports and aerobatic performances in the skies of DCS.

 

The Yak-52 is a two-seat training aircraft designed for basic pilot training. The aircraft has an M-14P 360 horsepower air-cooled engine equipped with a V530TA-D35 propeller. The aircraft is also equipped with a radio station, an intercom, navigation and flight equipment, landing flaps, and a retractable undercarriage with brake wheels; these allow trainee pilots to acquire the necessary skills in the usage of standard equipment present in most modern aircraft.

The high power-to-weight ratio and good maneuverability allow for the training of pilots in performing simple and complex aerobatic figures. The simplicity of the aircraft's construction, combined with its high durability and reliability make for very safe flights.

 

Yak-52: The Cutting Edge in Training Aviation
What makes an aircraft suitable for the delicate task of training aspiring pilots in the art of flight? 
Lightness, ease of use, manoeuvrability, and safety. These were the traits that would eventually become the versatile Yak-52.
The brainchild of the engineers and designers of the A.S. Yakovlev Experimental Design Bureau, the Yak-52 is a single-engine double-seat trainer monoplane with a low-mounted wing. Among the main tasks of the Yak-52 are training pilots of different skill levels, as well as training in instrument flight and glider towing. Owing to its powerful engine, the aircraft is capable of performing both simple and mcomplex aerobatic maneuvers, while its navigation and radio-electronic systems allow the pilot to navigate in conditions of reduced visibility (i.e. in the clouds). The aircraft's performance is also unhindered by frost, as the cockpit is equipped with heating and ventilation systems, and the aircraft's units are capable of operating at temperatures down to -45 ° C.
The designers came up with several innovations: an undercarriage with nose-mounted landing gear, and a fuel system that allowed for inverted flight and maneuvers with negative G-loads.

The Yak-52 became one of the main workhorses not only of domestic training aviation in Russia, but of Russian and international aerobatics competitions and championships as well.
The aircraft first took to the skies in 1976. During its creation, the designers took elements from the Yak-50 and Yak-18 models, but made some improvements. The Yak-50 and Yak-52 had to be very similar to each other (for cross-compatibility of the parts and structural elements) yet at the same time fly in completely different ways. For an aircraft designed for sports and aerobatics, minimal stability and quick response to the pilot's slightest action are key, yet an aircraft built for training purposes must be stable, much less sensitive to pilot input, and capable of carrying a fairly weighty equipment package onboard.

The Experimental Design Bureau was faced with the task of designing an aircraft that was both sufficiently stable and maneuverable (capable of performing even spinning aerobatic figures) - and their efforts were met with success. The designers finished their work in record time, with the entire design process taking only a few months. It is noteworthy that the project was led by a team of experienced designers, with V.P. Kondratiev at its head, and that the collaboration of the bureau's divisions was coordinated by members of the Komsomol.

 

Having seen numerous modifications, the training aircraft has become, and still remains, an indispensable element of the initial training of flight operations personnel and of pilots in civil aviation schools.

 

Edited February 25 by dcn

[Beirut]

1 hour ago, dcn said:

I think ED wants us to abandon the game mentality, . . . 

 

Indeed, that's sound business practice amongst all developers of all products.

 

"Please abandon us mentally. Thank you."

[SharpeXB]

I think unfortunately the Yak doesn’t get enough interest in DCS to make creating missions for it feasible. For example there is a very good Qualification Campaign for the A-10C by Maple Flag that covers all these basics and scores you on them.
https://forum.dcs.world/forum/381-a-10c-basic-flight-training-qualification-dlc/

It would certainly be possible to do this for the Yak but there likely aren’t enough owners of be module to make this profitable. So the answer is if you want a good training course for an aircraft in DCS get the A-10C. I think it’s the only module that has things like emergency procedures and such. The Maple Flag A-10C course is very thorough and mimics what the Air Force would require pilots to do. It’s a great challenge. 

Edited February 25 by SharpeXB

[Ornithopter]

@dcn It seems you're looking for a flight simulator to spoon-feed you everything you need to know.  No matter what plane you choose to learn on, just like in school, it helps to have a textbook, and you must do your homework. As pointed out by everyone here, there are all kinds of flying resources.  For example, you might start with something like the Airplane Flying Handbook: https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/1117 .  That book alone probably has half a dozen pages just dedicated to turning an aircraft.  It will explain basic manuevers, patterns, constant speed props, and many other useful things.

Edited February 25 by Ornithopter

[virgo47]

I'd love to have more "curriculum" in DCS, but I accepted it is not here and I have to use out-of-game material. The topic at this moment seems a bit exhausted. It is what it is.

[ThePops]

7 hours ago, dcn said:

I don't think Yak-52 was designed as an aerobatic aircraft, even though it took into account the requirements of aerobatics during its design.

We have to ask the designers I guess  From what I know, it started with the UT-2, several thousand built. During WW II there was a whole bunch of fighters, but after the war the Yak-18 came. A much more advanced UT-2 more or less, although a complete re-design. The Yak-18 were built in many different variants (not to be mixed with the Yak-18T which is a four seat aircraft, yet aerobatic. Taking the whole family for an aerobatic Sunday afternoon  ). The latest variants were the Yak-18PM and PS, which were single seat aerobatic planes. From this came the Yak-50, in turn a complete re-design of the Yak-18PM/PS. It was a huge success and won many world championships.

The Yak-52 is sort of a mix between the Yak-50 and a modernized Yak-18. It was designed as a military trainer and as a sport aircraft for DOSAAF, the Soviet flying club where all the Soviet aerobatic champions came from. The well known champion Svetlana Kapanina learned aerobatics in a Yak-52 at DOSAAF. Soon moved on to unlimited with the Su-26/29/31.

Again, we have to ask the designers. Still, the actual use has been as an aerobatic sport aircraft, aerobatic training and competitions, from the start. Today, most of them are used this way. There are more Yak-52s in the west than in the former east block countries. Many also consider it a Warbird due to the usage as a military trainer, like the slightly similar looking US trainer,  T-6. I think very few people consider the T-6 to be a sport aerobatic trainer however, and it was never used as such originally.     

[dcn]

9小时前，Ornithopter说：

For example, you might start with something like the Airplane Flying Handbook: https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/1117 .  That book alone probably has half a dozen pages just dedicated to turning an aircraft.  It will explain basic manuevers, patterns, constant speed props, and many other useful things.

I downloaded the pdf of it a few years ago, but it didn't work well when I tried it in DCS Yak-52.

2小时前，ThePops说：

The Yak-52 is sort of a mix between the Yak-50 and a modernized Yak-18.

You may not have read the DCS Yak-52 manual I sent.

During its creation, the designers took elements from the Yak-50 and Yak-18 models, but made some improvements. The Yak-50 and Yak-52 had to be very similar to each other (for cross-compatibility of the parts and structural elements) yet at the same time fly in completely different ways. For an aircraft designed for sports and aerobatics, minimal stability and quick response to the pilot's slightest action are key, yet an aircraft built for training purposes must be stable, much less sensitive to pilot input, and capable of carrying a fairly weighty equipment package onboard.

The Experimental Design Bureau was faced with the task of designing an aircraft that was both sufficiently stable and maneuverable (capable of performing even spinning aerobatic figures) - and their efforts were met with success. The designers finished their work in record time, with the entire design process taking only a few months. It is noteworthy that the project was led by a team of experienced designers, with V.P. Kondratiev at its head, and that the collaboration of the bureau's divisions was coordinated by members of the Komsomol.

12小时前，draconus说：

Yes, you can also learn how to fly but if you expect some kind of flying school from DCS developer, you're in for the disappointment.

This is exactly what I mean.

12小时前，SharpeXB说：

Well clearly this type of aircraft does not sell very well in a game like this devoted to combat. It’s still in EA after almost seven years. I hate to say the realm of non combat civil flying is better done and more appealing in other games. I’m not trying to get into game comparisons but that’s literally what those other games are about. DCS is a combat sim. 

Agree.DCS has been involved in the field of civil aviation, but the effect is not good, such as Christen Eagle II.

15小时前，Ala13_ManOWar说：

So yeah, it helps to some extent, you have to be careful though and not think you already know it all and it's enough because it's not since there are lots of things either that you don't learn in sims because you don't need to, practical things, knowledge of the machine, knowledge of the environment you fly in, but all of those and many more just aren't there and cannot be in a PC because they're useless, at least in our current PC environment.

This is what I have been repeating in this thread. That's why I want to learn real life flight from scratch.But I failed,in DCS a trainer aircraft can't teach me how to fly a plane in real life,so I think ED releasing Yak-52 might be a mistake.

Edited February 26 by dcn

[Ornithopter]

If you're so intent on learning what a "real pilot" knows, then why don't you take private piloting lessons, and earn your PPL?  OK, everyone gets your point, the Yak-52 and other training aircraft in DCS aren't teaching you what you want to know.   You've been given many opinions, but your views seem to be unchanged, and unmoved from your original post.  What more does anyone need to say about it?

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, dcn said:

Agree.DCS has been involved in the field of civil aviation, but the effect is not good, such as Christen Eagle II.

No game can do everything well. The military aircraft in those civy sims don’t seem to be very good either. If being well rounded is something that interests you, then delving into different games can be good experience. 

[ThePops]

4 hours ago, dcn said:

For an aircraft designed for sports and aerobatics, minimal stability and quick response to the pilot's slightest action are key, yet an aircraft built for training purposes must be stable, much less sensitive to pilot input, and capable of carrying a fairly weighty equipment package onboard.

It doesn't really work like that. I learned basic aerobatics in a C-152A (A for Aerobat) many years ago. I think the C-152 is perhaps the "mother of all" civilian trainers, at least it "think" it is, many disagree though. The Yak-52 is many steps up on the ladder. It is capable of -5g and has inverted oil and fuel system. There's no good reason a trainer, military or civilian, should be capable of negative 5g and have an inverted system. Negative g maneuvers are not part of any training syllabus, not even for basic aerobatics, Primary, or the next class in the ladder, Sportsman. Real negative g maneuvers doesn't even play a part before the higher classes. In the west, a requirement for flying any aerobatics is the airframe must withstand -3 g, but that is purely for safety purposes. -3g is not enough to do a negative loop for instance, or a negative pull up.

There are several steps up the ladder in aerobatics, from Primary, which can be done in a C-152A to unlimited. Unlimited is obviously governed by the competition alone, thus the performance and maneuverability of those aircraft are insane. A C-152 can do primary class only. A Yak-52 can in principle do unlimited, but it will be hopelessly outclasses. Even in the Advanced class, the step down from unlimited, the aircraft are perfectly flyable by anyone with descent experience in flying. An unlimited class aircraft, to be able to compete at the top, the controls are so light, and thus the maneuverability so quick, that it takes several tens of hours simply to get used to the aircraft and fly it properly, even for seasoned Advanced pilots (having flown competition aerobatics for years already). But, except for insanely light controls, there aren't any mentionable difference between Advanced and Unlimited. The only reason for those light controls is to win competitions, not to do aerobatics.

I think you discredit DOSAAF. DOSAAF was an "institution" in the USSR, and the Yak-52 wouldn't even be half of what it is today without DOSAAF pulling the design strings so to speak.

[draconus]

5 hours ago, dcn said:

DCS has been involved in the field of civil aviation, but the effect is not good, such as Christen Eagle II.

Trainers are not as popular as fighters, duh?! Now go to MP aerobatic server or virtual air shows and tell them all "the effect is not good"

5 hours ago, dcn said:

That's why I want to learn real life flight from scratch.But I failed,in DCS a trainer aircraft can't teach me how to fly a plane in real life,so I think ED releasing Yak-52 might be a mistake.

No, it was not a mistake. It was opportunity to simulate Yak-52 (they have already made it for professional client) and they went for it. Those who found it interesting or liked the aircraft have bought the module and had fun with it. Your failure does not imply that DCS failed with anything. You're just trolling at this point. We do have a few trainers and there even was another one (PC-9/A) WIP but unfortunately they stopped the development.

[Beirut]

21 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

DCS is a combat sim. 

 

Absolutely.

 

That said, and maybe I'm in the minority, but I spend half my DCS time just flying for fun. The graphics are certainly good enough to enjoy the eye candy, and the planes are The Best!, so being a flightsimmer... I flightsim. And the more planes and maps we have, the more just flying around is fun. And you'd think I'd get tired of my Phantom WSO patting me on the head and telling me how wonderful my landings are. But I don't. 

 

"You're a good boy! You're such a good boy!" 

[Ala13_ManOWar]

10 hours ago, dcn said:

This is what I have been repeating in this thread. That's why I want to learn real life flight from scratch.But I failed,in DCS a trainer aircraft can't teach me how to fly a plane in real life,so I think ED releasing Yak-52 might be a mistake.

Yes, but if you're interested in getting involved in RL aviation, no matter just for fun or professionally, DCS is a very good entry point since you'll learn real stuff and not parallel universes physics and FM like others flight sims out there are. You won't learn it all, you can't from a gaming software, but it's very good stuff to learn from the basics. As I told you, I had many years of "just simulation" experience when I got my license and I flew all the way from starting the aircraft (first time a C172S I had no idea of despite it's a very common ship even on sims) to landing since my very first flight (with an instructor at your side, which is who actually flies the aircraft, but you'll learn and notice that only later on) and I didn't even learned in DCS, I learned with other older and quite lower sims. But, even with my quite ample simulation experience to that point, I didn't take anything for granted, I went to flight school like I knew nothing and wanting to be taught "from zero", it was just I was not at that zero point so I knew what instructors asked me to do so really quite easier to me, but I wanted to listen to every aspect I was told, known for me or not because I wanted to be told all the nuances and subtleties a real life operation has compared to simulation. In short, be humble and listen to everything you're told, known or not, expected or not, and especially when it confronts what you already know, has read or listened before because there you're facing real life and actually your life and maybe others' lives at stake.

So, if you want to learn from absolute scratch only with a PC gaming software absolutely everything to be a real pilot, no, currently and for the time being you won't just using pc software (or even professional simulators or software, which are used to train, not to learn from scratch). Does it help though and it really eases the learning curve and you get better and faster real experience if you use a simulator like DCS is on top of your flight school? Yes, it totally does, if that's your concern and the question why you started this thread.

30 minutes ago, Beirut said:

That said, and maybe I'm in the minority, but I spend half my DCS time just flying for fun. The graphics are certainly good enough to enjoy the eye candy, and the planes are The Best!, so being a flightsimmer... I flightsim.

Absolutely this .