Proposal: Free modern onboarding and/or trainer module

[Andurula]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

A simulator is a subset of game. All sims are games, not all games are sims. DCS is a game because nothing you do here has any real consequences. It’s a fantasy world where cost and safety don’t exist. 

That may be your idea of a simulator but that is not the definition of a simulator.  Game publishers do like to throw that word around like it has another meaning so I can understand the confusion.

Would you call a Boeing 767 full motion simulator a game?  No.  Could you try to perform a loop in the 767 full motion simulator just for fun?  You wouldn't be the first.

DCS isn't on par with that level of simulator obviously but it does offer more simulation than say a Link trainer so it certainly could be used as a simulator.

It is all in how you want to use it and neither way is wrong.  All these arguments/discussions come from a position that how you use DCS is the only right way to use it.

[edit] I am just going to add an edit because a quick Google search doesn't always show the old Link full motion simulator so people may not know what I was referring too. The old LInk 16 was a full motion flight simulator that was a plastic airplane shaped box with the "sacred six" analog flight instruments installed.  It was useful for training basic performance maneuvers and introductory instrument flight.  

Edited May 6 by Andurula
added detail

[SharpeXB]

32 minutes ago, erniedaoage said:

Click on a link, fill out a form, wait for the response of an instructor to get your training lessons going.

I can’t fathom anyone needing such instruction to play a game. A teenager could teach themselves this stuff. 

1 minute ago, Andurula said:

Would you call a Boeing 767 full motion simulator a game? 

It would be if one of us was playing with it.  

Very very very few of us will ever fly these or perhaps any aircraft for real. DCS is a game to us. A realistic game but still just that. Nobody’s life depends on how well you play this. That should be obvious. 

[draconus]

9 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I can’t fathom anyone needing such instruction to play a game. A teenager could teach themselves this stuff. 

Apparently some prefer it and even pay for it.

[draconus]

12 minutes ago, Andurula said:

Would you call a Boeing 767 full motion simulator a game?  No.  Could you try to perform a loop in the 767 full motion simulator just for fun?  You wouldn't be the first.

Pro sims and game sims are much closer these days than ever due to tech availability and PC computing power but it's mostly the purpose and data accuracy (esp. on confidential stuff) which divides them apart. You can't deny the officially used definitions from wiki though.

[Andurula]

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

ED entirely do know that they are selling a game:

Since ED also sell a commercial, military version (to defence forces around the world) of DCS, this should not come as a surprise. That software isn't a game, and the difference is easy to see: you get paid for operating it. 

But I think I know what you mean: there are people who believe DCS to be a more 'serious' game than others, and for those who do believe that they are more 'seriously playing a game' than others, selling a trainer aircraft may be a winning proposal to those people.

For entertainment DCS is just fine, and can indeed be anything to anybody. Trainers will only interest a small subset, and I think of them as edge cases (even though I own all, love them, and fly them). In my group, I'm the only one flying them, the odd one out. And I do not regard myself as a realism-obsessed rivet-counter. I'm just odd  . 

I think we are basically on the same page here.  I dislike the "more serious game than others" concept because (IMHO) there is a TON of fun to be had by going a bit deeper than reading a Chuck's guide and slinging AMRAAMS.  I don't regard that as "more serious" but simply "more fun". The most fun I have had in DCS is going through the "Fighter Fundamentals" handbook and recreating those exercises with my friends.  From there a world of real world exercises and tactics that can be accurately recreated in DCS if you have the background skills. (Robert Shaw is my God)   It adds a whole new level of depth and fun.

[Andurula]

7 minutes ago, draconus said:

Pro sims and game sims are much closer these days than ever due to tech availability and PC computing power but it's mostly the purpose and data accuracy (esp. on confidential stuff) which divides them apart. You can't deny the officially used definitions from wiki though.

I think I can though because I know of professional flight schools that use MSFS to train their students for certain parts of their education.  That distinction in wiki doesn't exist in reality.  Like you say, it is a very blurry line between the two realms.

[SharpeXB]

23 minutes ago, draconus said:

Apparently some prefer it and even pay for it.

Yeah and that’s just so pathetic for both roles…

[erniedaoage]

21 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I can’t fathom anyone needing such instruction to play a game. A teenager could teach themselves this stuff. 

I also can't fathom anyone needing a tourist guide when they go on vacation and it's still a very lucrative business. 

Also there is a big difference in how you learn for yourself through videos or being instructed by an experienced/professional person. I can take off and land almost every module i have, but i am quite sure i am not doing the proper landing procedures. Every new module i buy, i set up the controls go for a free flight and try to land it. Everybody has a different approach how they enjoy their install of DCS. I am going to read further instructions on how to setup weapons/navigation/... as i progress through campaigns or missions and i start to fail at some point. And the more i get into a module the more i learn and read about it. Till i am at the point where i know how to cold start it. But why should i waste time on cold start procedures when i can hit autostart and get things going, its a game in the end and i can restart anytime. Whatever floats your boat, i have never done a checklist startup ever and i lost a couple of canopies on the runway. 

[=475FG= Dawger]

There are some very serious flaws in DCS that take it out of the “simulation” category with respect to applicability towards real world flying. 
 

It can be a good cockpit procedures trainer and pretty decent air combat maneuvers trainer (in VR only)

It is terrible for learning real world navigation outside of some limited computer aided instrument navigation and some TACAN type navigation. 
 

Altimetry in DCS is a complete fantasy implementation. 
 

DCS is solidly a game with a few areas of simulation specific to aircraft only. 

[SharpeXB]

9 minutes ago, erniedaoage said:

Also there is a big difference in how you learn for yourself through videos or being instructed by an experienced/professional person.

Sure but why does it matter, really? Go at your own pace. This is just for entertainment. 

8 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

There are some very serious flaws in DCS that take it out of the “simulation” category with respect to applicability towards real world flying. 

I hate the break the news but the vast majority of players are never going to fly these aircraft for real, so none of this matters. Sure it’s all fun and immersive to play Walter Mitty fighter pilot. But it’s only a game. 

[Andurula]

And around and around it goes.

Use DCS the way you want to.

 

There is no wrong way.  Just because you don't find something useful doesn't mean someone else has to feel the same.

[Dragon1-1]

5 hours ago, cfrag said:

I've tried with some friends, even springing for the trainer aircraft. Result: they never fly the trainer even though it was free (to them), and they learned flying with the (much cheaper) FC Eagle.

If anything, it shows that the concept of a trainer is very much relevant in DCS. It's just adequately filled by FC3 aircraft, with their simplified avionics. A trainer is supposed to be simpler to fly and operate than a proper combat jet, and FC3 Eagle is just that. Yes, it has powerful engines, but IRL trainers have wimpy engines so that they're cheaper, not because it confers anything in terms of training benefits. Same reason most of them can't carry AMRAAMs (plus, real radars are not as easy to operate as the FC3 Eagle).

1 hour ago, Andurula said:

DCS isn't on par with that level of simulator obviously but it does offer more simulation than say a Link trainer so it certainly could be used as a simulator.

Software side, it might well be on a similar level. As for the hardware, it can use a motion platform and a full cockpit sim. You just have to own them (and some do).

[cfrag]

1 minute ago, Dragon1-1 said:

If anything, it shows that the concept of a trainer is very much relevant in DCS.

Oh, I think the concept is relevant all right. I fly them, they are fantastic modules, and I personally love the 'steam gauges' over glass. Trainers simply aren't popular in DCS because outside of enthusiasts, they have no purpose. Most people want to blow stuff up, and trainers are boring compared to fighters; directly training on a fighter poses no downsides in a game.

Also, trainers - when used as trainers - always require two people: a trainer and a student, i.e. it is a multiplayer session. The DCS population is some 90% single-player, and anyone who has arranged an occasional MP DCS session with a new player knows how user-hostile, unintuitive and plain bad the MP UX for that game is. A definite turn-off. So, you arrange a meeting with a friend to teach you some flying skills, and you synchronize your quality time, maybe 2 hours. That can be fun; however, it is often not a stellar experience, and if your instructor doesn't know their stuff, or their syllabus conflicts with your own playing expectations, or the (prepared) mission doesn't work, it is going to be a crap experience. So I assert (without proof) that some 9 times out of 10, trainers are a great concept, and they only translate to a fine experience for that last 10 percent.

So, yeah, I own them all and love them. And I'm very, very alone in my group. Trying to combat a G3 or G4 plane in a trainer is absurd, even if you go up against a neophyte, so on most servers, they don't even have slots. So - great concept, very little purpose, and still fun (to me). 

[Ornithopter]

The concept of a free Texan II is asking too much, I think.  The other equivalent aircraft in DCS are all study-level, hi-fid simulations of the real aircraft, and of course cost money and time to develop to that level.  The L-39 and C-101 can be picked up relatively cheaply during sales times, such as right now.  If someone were to make a Texan II, I'd buy it because it looks like a pretty cool airplane.

I don't understand the reason why people get so bent out of shape over the word "Trainer".  A well simulated airplane is a well simulated airplane, and people can use it however they feel like, regardless of whether somebody else thinks there is a "need" for such an aircraft.  Who cares?  The only thing relavent is if there are enough people who think they can buy it and enjoy it, and the developer can make a profit.   In the MSFS world, people are flying Cessna 172s and other light GA aircraft that can also be trainers IRL, but are also commonly used for just recreational flying.  The Military trainers in DCS are a lot more advanced than that, and can be used as a sophisticated sim in their own right.  DCS is of course geared for combat, but in my own use, I don't always feel like flying a Hornet, Tomcat, or Phantom and blowing things up.  Those are a lot more complex, and suprisingly easy to forget with even a little disuse.  I frequently like to fire up a simpler aircraft and fly it around like its a GA plane as I would in a civilian-oriented sim/game, enjoying wonderful scenery, challenging weather, or whatever.  I'm not necessarily training or practicing skills to be effective in a different simulated front-line fighter aircraft in this game, I'm just flying around for it's own sake, probably sipping a beer and listening to some music too, enjoying the airplane I'm flying for what it is.  And, if I do want to drop dumb bombs or strafe some trucks, or even engage in air to air missile and gun combat, I can do that with a C-101 or L-39 as well, and without having to pull out a Chuck's Guide for a refresher because I haven't flown a particular aircraft in a while.

 

 

Edited May 6 by Ornithopter

[SharpeXB]

30 minutes ago, Ornithopter said:

I don't understand the reason why people get so bent out of shape over the word "Trainer".

Nobody is bent out of shape. Just pointing out that such a free trainer would not likely be a draw for new players as the topic suggests. An F-35 is more like what new players would get pulled in with and would buy. You can see the spike in players when something like the Phantom launches. That’s where the appeal is. 

Edited May 6 by SharpeXB

[Ornithopter]

Quote

Nobody is bent out of shape. Just pointing out that such a free trainer would not likely be a draw for new players as the topic suggests. An F-35 is more like what new players would get pulled in with and would buy. You can see the spike in players when something like the Phantom launches. That’s where the appeal is. 

Well, you seem to be fixated on whether there is a "need" for such an aircraft, not whether there is a desire or want for such an aircraft.  Frankly, there is no Need for a game like DCS at all, we could all just watch television for several hours each night, like the era of our parents.  My guess is that the L-39 has sold a lot of copies for ED.  Aerges has a topnotch Mirage, but I'll bet they also have a good customer base with their Aviojet.  There is a Macchi too, which was once freeware, but by popular demand is now payware.

As I said, I don't agree with the OP's premise that something like a Texan II would be a smart choice of Freeware for ED, because of it's assumed development costs.

Of course a Trainer is not going to generate the buzz of such an iconic aircraft like the F-4.  I'll bet the F-4 sold very well.  I'll also bet that, due to it's complexity, it is also a very common Queen of many virtual hangars.  I love the Phantom, but I also struggle to find the time or motivation to really get good at it.  I enjoy simpler aircraft in addition to the complex ones.  Certainly that can't be so uncommon?

Edited May 6 by Ornithopter

[SharpeXB]

14 minutes ago, Ornithopter said:

Well, you seem to be fixated on whether there is a "need" for such an aircraft,

Not fixated, again just making an obvious point. There isn’t a need for trainers in a game like there is IRL. Sometimes the choices in modules here seem pretty random. Personally I can’t see why someone would feel the need or purpose for making these. Since this is a combat game you’d think the priority would be on matching up opposing aircraft or pairing them with maps and so on. Look how long it took for the MiG-21 to get its rival here. Why did it take so long to get a FF F-15C? It’s puzzling that the limited resources of this game sometime go towards these obscure aircraft. 

Edited May 6 by SharpeXB

[Luca Kowalski]

TL;DR

Letting newcomers try DCS by flying with someone — in a free, modern, two-seat demo plane — could lower the entry barrier dramatically, without sacrificing realism.

Not a simplification — just a better way to share the experience.

Many outside the community would love that chance. Right now, DCS doesn’t offer it.

 

 

---

 

1. The idea — in short

A free, modern, two-seat demo plane (similar to a trainer class) that allows experienced DCS players to take friends along in multiplayer — to make the first contact with DCS smoother, more social, and more welcoming.

Not a simplification of the sim, but an onboarding tool built around connection and immersion.

 

 

---

 

2. What I’ve learned so far from the replies

Some veterans feel this isn’t needed — that those who really want to learn will find their way. Others point out that existing modules or trials already provide the necessary tools.

I respect those views — but I’d argue that’s exactly the kind of thinking that keeps DCS in a tight bubble.

 

 

---

 

3. What people outside the DCS bubble say

Several friends — intelligent, curious gamers who enjoy realism — told me they would love to try DCS… if someone could take them along.

Not in a full tutorial. Not in a cold start. Just sitting in the backseat of a modern aircraft, guided by someone who knows the ropes.

They don’t mind complexity. They just need a way in that doesn’t feel like boot camp.

 

I’ve even seen this play out firsthand. My ex once tried to fly in DCS using my account — she crashed within minutes. Not because she wasn’t interested, but because there was no structure, no guidance, and no natural entry point.

She never touched it again. Not because DCS was “too hard,” but because it wasn’t welcoming.

A two-seater demo aircraft could have changed everything: she could’ve joined me as a passenger, asked questions, and tried flying herself — with context and confidence, and with me preventing her from pancaking herself.

 

 

---

 

4. Why the proposal still stands strong

There’s no aircraft in DCS right now that’s:

• Free

• Modern (glass cockpit, GPS, clean avionics)

• Multiplayer-capable for ride-alongs

• Designed as a non-threatening entry point

 

A purpose-built demo plane could fill that gap. And if built smartly, it could even form the basis for a paid variant (e.g. light attack or campaign version).

Some have pointed out that the TF-51D was derived from the paid P-51D — and not the other way around. That’s true, but it doesn’t have to be a one-way street.

If ED ever decides to develop such an aircraft, there’s no reason it must start as a full paid module. It could just as well begin as a smart, accessible free platform — and evolve from there.

 

Others have said a free aircraft wouldn’t be worth the cost, since it doesn’t generate revenue. But I'd like to broaden this view.

A module like this isn’t meant to sell itself — it’s meant to bring people in.

If more people discover DCS through a welcoming first flight, and then stick around, the long-term gain in module, campaign, and map sales could easily outweigh the initial investment.

Free doesn’t mean worthless — it means strategic.

 

 

---

 

5. But what about Flaming Cliffs 3?

Flaming Cliffs 3 is often brought up as the “easy entry” into DCS — and yes, it simplifies controls and removes clickable cockpits.

But it doesn’t lower the psychological or social barriers that most newcomers face.

 

FC3 modules still require:

• binding controls manually

• setting up missions

• understanding the interface

• and flying alone, with no guided experience

 

They’re simpler, yes — but not more welcoming.

A modern demo aircraft, flown alongside a friend, could offer an immediate, immersive introduction — not through simplification, but through shared experience.

 

 

---

 

6. Final thought

I’m grateful for the discussion, even the critical replies. But I hope we don’t fall into the trap of assuming that what worked for us is the only path worth having.

The passion behind DCS is real — and maybe it’s time we made it a little easier to share.

Edited May 10 by Luca Kowalski

[Dragon1-1]

I think that the T-50 Golden Eagle would be a perfect free module, if ED made the FA-50 as payware. It's a very modern trainer (post-2010, so maybe a little too modern), can go supersonic, so performance is decent, and in its FA version it's a significant ground attack aircraft today. As a bonus, the controls look very similar to the F-16. Differences between T-50 and FA-50 seem to be marginal, so the P-51 and TF-51 type relationship could be possible.

[cfrag]

4 hours ago, Luca Kowalski said:

Many outside the community would love that chance. Right now, DCS doesn’t offer it.

That is your assertion. Considering that some 90% of DCS players do not play multiplayer (as evidenced by ED), and that for this to work you must set up some common time for neophytes to link up with you, and you must be able to teach flying in an interesting way, that tiny 10% sliver shrinks down to a (I assert, no hard numbers available) less than 1%. From personal experience I can tell you that in my group, there was no interest in flying a trainer, much less with me . That is merely incidental evidence, agreed.

Can you put a number on "many", and more importantly, can you see a way how that would dramatically increase (in actual numbers please) sales of DCS modules? ED have the numbers on trainer modules sold. As a business they did not, in the past 10 years move on this, so I daresay that that business case (creating a free trainer for all) is not sufficiently attractive.

4 hours ago, Luca Kowalski said:

could lower the entry barrier dramatically

Please explain. Which entry barrier, and what does "dramatically" mean in concrete terms? IMHO, you replace one problem with another, more complex one: Instead of trial and error by trying it yourself, you now need to find a good trainer. Because, lets be honest, I'd wager that (please do not take offense) 99.9% of the DCS community aren't qualified to teach flying. I certainly am not, and I am certified to fly. So if you want to learn how to bank'n'yank a trainer from my godson who taught himself by trial and error, sure,  go ahead. How that makes it a better experience I do not have the faintest idea. I'm almost certain, though, that it won't lower any barriers.

4 hours ago, Luca Kowalski said:

Some veterans feel this isn’t needed — that those who really want to learn will find their way

While that may be some people's sentiment, to me that seems almost wilful misrepresentation of what was written here to almost a straight-out lie. The sentiment is that it would be welcome, but the concept of a trainer simply isn't practical in a game where there are no disadvantages attached to train on the 'real' plane instead of using a trainer first. Put differently, the prevailing sentiment is that trainers in DCS, do not provide a sufficient advantage.

4 hours ago, Luca Kowalski said:

3. What people outside the DCS bubble say

Several friends — intelligent, curious gamers who enjoy realism — told me they would love to try DCS… if someone could take them along.

I won't directly call BS on this, coincidental evidence does exist. Here's a thought: get yourself a trainer (Albatross, C-101 or MB, I personally think that the C-101 is best suited, the MB is much too pretty), and have your friend(s) check out the 101 on a 14 day trial. Schedule 2 hour sessions with them every other day during those two weeks, maybe more. Tip: make sure that you have a syllabus ready before they join, maybe talk them through the lessons before you join. When complete, bring your experience here, because that is tangible, worthwhile feedback that can help improve the experience for neophyte DCS users (because, I'm sure everyone agrees that that experience sucks big hairy ones). It may also help to illustrate many other DCS-specific shortcomings in the MP arena (DCS's online experience IMHO is terrible)

4 hours ago, Luca Kowalski said:

4. Why the proposal still stands strong

There’s no aircraft in DCS right now that’s:

• [...]

• Designed as a non-threatening entry point

That is because DCS' main draw is that it allows people to fly overbearing, overpowered, threatening beast of war, armed to the teeth. Few people come to DCS to fly timid ducks. People fly DCS to blow stuff up. There are other flight sims that cover the non-threating space to a T, with much better support for procedures and, e.g. ATC than DCS. If you are here, it's because you want to place fuzed ordnance on someone's ass. I assert that >99% of all DCS players come to DCS because of planes like the Eagle, Tomcat or Hornet, maybe Apache. None of those are non-threating planes, and since you can use those as trainers as well, I think your proposal is exceedingly weak. I think that only a dwindling minority would be interested in flying those non-threatening planes, even if they were free. TBH, it's one of the biggest complaints I hear about the (free) Su-25T: it doesn't pack a large enough punch.

4 hours ago, Luca Kowalski said:

FC3 modules still require:

• binding controls manually

While control binding is indeed a sorely bad point in DCS, I am not sure how a trainer could solve this. Doesn't the DCS neophyte have to bind all controls before they join their trainer online? 

4 hours ago, Luca Kowalski said:

understanding the interface

Ahem. How do you get to join your instructor's game (or ad-hoc host your own) without understanding the interface? More to the point: how does a trainer solve this?

4 hours ago, Luca Kowalski said:

and flying alone, with no guided experience

We all know that this is entirely possible, from millions of players who have successfully done this alone, in other flights sims over the past decades. If memory servers right, the Wright Brothers managed this IRL, so let's not pretend that this a real barrier. Also, let's not kid ourselves: you can't shoot a correct precision approach with ATC in DCS even if you know how, and most players don't. That does not prevent anyone from picking up the bits that are important to do this, and they use their own methods of locating, and approaching, a VORTAC or NDB. This, btw, will also what they will teach their students which immediately brings up the question: who and what controls the quality of what is being taught with trainers? If the trainers and syllabus are as bad as the tutorials, I think it would be better if we skip trainers altogether, because they would infect the students with bad habits that need to be unlearned first. 

4 hours ago, Luca Kowalski said:

But it doesn’t lower the psychological or social barriers that most newcomers face.

Please be more specific about those psychological or social barriers, and how a trainer could help to break those down. I think that enumerating those barriers - independently if a trainer would indeed lower them - will help to make DCS a better product. I agree that there are many barriers to enjoy playing DCS; that many of them indeed make DCS inaccessible (terrible UI, worse UX, unnecessary complexity, you-gotta-be-kidding-me bad tutorials) to many a potential player. Identifying them can be the first step in removing them - the second step could be identifying ways to overcome those barriers (e.g. by adding a trainer); so let's take these one step at the time.

 

Edited May 10 by cfrag

[SharpeXB]

As far as I know the big civy flight sim doesn’t have a dual cockpit feature at all and yet has probably 10-50x the number of players. So clearly that’s not the reason CFS games are so niche. 

[LucShep]

On 5/5/2025 at 12:26 PM, Luca Kowalski said:

I agree the AT-6B would be great (personally, I would love it), but it’s more of a light attack aircraft than a basic trainer. My proposal focuses on improving onboarding for new players, and the T-6B Texan II in a clean, unarmed trainer config could be ideal for that.

On 5/6/2025 at 9:27 AM, cfrag said:

One big fly in the ointment is that trainer aircraft do not translate to computer games, and there is no real need, nor overwhelming desire. Trainer aircraft are something for enthusiasts like me (I own each and every trainer aircraft in DCS, love them all). No average player wants to sit through boring lessons, performaing 2 minute turns. They want to blow stuff up, and fly the mighty fighters of Maverick et al, not a dinky trainer that can barely fight.

I've tried with some friends, even springing for the trainer aircraft. Result: they never fly the trainer even though it was free (to them), and they learned flying with the (much cheaper) FC Eagle. There are no downsides in games to start with the real deal. Trainers simply aren't "sexy" enough. So even if ED invested the required funds (significant investment), I think it will be a dud.

Have to say, I resonate with what @cfrag wrote there. Pretty similar to my experience through the years, with many others who I've introduced to DCS as well.

For all the reasons already stated, I think it's a given that it is the FC aircraft (the modern fighters in that collection) that get the attention from newcomers.

Especially the F-15C - even more so than the Su-27 and Mig-29A - is the one that ticks all the boxes, in my opinion.
That one would always be my candidate for a free included module, and as a module to recommend a newcomer to DCS (not the Su-25T, not the TF-51, and not a trainer).

Because it's an iconic and popular fighter jet, modern enough, fun/easy enough, and serious enough, to begin with and get hooked.
It's (still) extremely popular, judging by MP servers and number of downloadable SP and MP community missions.
Plus, it's already made and in a very mature state - which means zero waste in development resources.

There is no better aircraft in DCS than that to lure in more people (by making it the "default free aircraft", included with the game download).

Once there's a real desire to progress and go down the DCS rabbit hole, anyone will eventually explore and buy full-fidelity modules and maps, which are also far more expensive.
 

Edited May 10 by LucShep

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

There is no better aircraft in DCS than that to lure in more people (by making it the "default free aircraft", included with the game download).

Common sense dictates that you shouldn’t give away a product that probably brings in a lot of revenue. And all the aircraft in DCS have free trials. The FC F-15C is on sale now for $7.49 which is nearly “free” in any case.  

Edited May 10 by SharpeXB

[LucShep]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Common sense dictates that you shouldn’t give away a product that probably brings in a lot of revenue. And all the aircraft in DCS have free trials. The FC F-15C is on sale now for $7.49 which is nearly “free” in any case.  

I disagree.

One could argue that the F-15C module is already extremely affordable and etc (like you just did), sure.
But it is the comodity of having it already in the game, ready to be used, without any hoops and hassle of the extra content payment, download and installation to a newcomer (who is just dipping his/her toes into the water), that makes this the kind of decision that should have been (IMO) already made by ED.
The initial impact with DCS for the newcomer would, undoubtedly, be far more positive, tremendously so. 

The aircraft that corresponds to your description is the F/A-18C and, perhaps, also the F-16C and the AH-64D Apache.
Those are best-sellers, should not be made free for obvious revenue reasons.

The F-15C is cheap as chips ($7.49) and there's also (still, I think) the 50% discount on the very first purchased module.
In the end, the revenue on that module alone is meaningless - most will purchase the entire Flaming Cliffs bundle instead - in a list populated with modules at ten times over that price (bar the periodic discounts).

Sacrificing the older and simple F-15C module's tiny revenue (by making it the "default free included" module) makes all the sense, for the greater good, both for the newcomer and for DCS's sustainability.

We're no longer in the pandemic period with people forced to be in their homes and bored to tears. Sales numbers are not as it was then. 
ED needs to make revenue easier, and make the game imediately more appealing, grab and hook the curious newcomer from the start.

Having some simpler cheap modules, free trials and periodic discounts, all that is great. But we're talking about the initial impact for the newcomer who may, or may not, like what he sees/feels when testing the (free) content provided with the game download - It's always the very first impression that counts.

 

Edited May 10 by LucShep

[cfrag]

5 minutes ago, LucShep said:

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Common sense dictates that you shouldn’t give away a product that probably brings in a lot of revenue. And all the aircraft in DCS have free trials. The FC F-15C is on sale now for $7.49 which is nearly “free” in any case.  

I disagree.
[many good points removed]

More simply put: any savvy dealer will give you the first fix for free.