Proposal: Free T-6 Texan II as modern onboarding trainer module

[Luca Kowalski]

Hi all,

Following a suggestion I submitted via ED support, I was kindly redirected here to share the idea with the broader community and development team. So here it is:

---

DCS World currently offers two free aircraft to get started — which is great — but neither of them is a modern two-seat trainer. New players are often introduced to the sim through aircraft that are either outdated, overly complex, or simply not well-suited for learning the basics of flight and navigation in a modern context.

I’d like to propose the introduction of a free T-6B Texan II module (or a similar modern trainer) to serve as a smooth, welcoming entry point into DCS World.

Such an aircraft would allow players to:

• Learn the basics of flight (VFR, IFR, basic formation flying) in a modern, accessible environment,

• Ride along in multiplayer missions as a second crew member with an experienced pilot,

• Transition more smoothly into advanced modules like the F/A-18C, F-16C, or future aircraft like the F-15C or F-35A.

A trainer like the Texan II would combine simplicity, immersion, and modern avionics — making it attractive to newcomers without overwhelming them.
It could also serve as a natural stepping stone toward paid expansions or advanced training campaigns.

But perhaps most importantly: a free dual-seat trainer would give potential new players the opportunity to experience DCS from the backseat — guided by veterans — making it easier for existing players to “spread the virus,” so to speak.

I believe this initiative would not only attract and retain new users, but also inspire squadrons and communities to organize structured training — strengthening the DCS ecosystem overall.

---

Why the T-6B Texan II?

• Modern avionics & clean interface – A great platform to introduce new players to VFR/IFR flying, formation, and radio procedures.

• Two-seat configuration – Enables multiplayer flights with veteran instructors (and training squadrons!), which is perfect for onboarding.

• Immersive but approachable – Less intimidating than jumping straight into an F/A-18 or F-16, yet still realistic and rewarding.

---

This would not only make the sim more accessible, but also help squadrons and communities bring in new pilots with a shared platform — possibly even reducing the need for external training mods or third-party tools. A good trainer creates good pilots... and good customers.

Thanks for reading — and thanks to the team for continuing to develop such a rich and rewarding sim.

Edited 19 hours ago by Luca Kowalski

[SOLIDKREATE]

I'd vote for the AT-6B personally.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 10:02 AM by SOLIDKREATE

[draconus]

We're talking about 2-3 years of development for the team of at least 2-3 very talented and experienced people to make aircraft model, full cockpit, systems, controls, FM, DM, sounds, textures and skins - who's gonna pay for their work?

Edited yesterday at 11:32 AM by draconus

[Luca Kowalski]

Thanks for the feedback — both points are totally valid.

 

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.

 

Regarding development time and cost: absolutely — a full-fidelity module takes serious time and resources. But ED already maintains two free aircraft (TF-51D and Su-25T), and recently added the Marianas as a free map — so we know they continue to support free core content.

 

Also worth noting: the Mustang exists in two versions — the free TF-51D for basic flying, and the paid P-51D for full warbird functionality.

This shows there's room for a split model:

A free T-6B to welcome and train new players

And a paid AT-6B for those who want combat capability in the same airframe, which could be developed by building on the free trainer.

 

 

So this isn’t about asking for a “free plane,” but about suggesting a scalable and community-friendly approach to onboarding and light prop trainer development.

 

Thanks again for the discussion — much appreciated!

Edited yesterday at 11:30 AM by Luca Kowalski

[SharpeXB]

Full fidelity modules are too costly to develop and then give away for free with the game, besides a free trial is available for every aircraft. Also “trainer” aircraft aren’t needed since all the reasons these exist in the real world aren’t relevant in a game. 

[Luca Kowalski]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Full fidelity modules are too costly to develop and then give away for free with the game, besides a free trial is available for every aircraft. Also “trainer” aircraft aren’t needed since all the reasons these exist in the real world aren’t relevant in a game. 

That’s a fair point — developing full-fidelity aircraft is undeniably a significant investment.

 

Still, I think it’s worth noting that DCS already includes a free full-fidelity aircraft in the TF-51D Mustang. While it’s not armed, it’s fully clickable and system-accurate — which shows that ED sees value in offering deep content to ease people in.

 

The idea of a modern two-seat trainer isn’t about replicating real-world training doctrine one-to-one, but rather about improving accessibility and the learning curve within DCS itself — especially for people just starting out, or those flying in multiplayer squadrons.

 

On the topic of cost: one angle worth considering is that a free trainer doesn’t have to be a dead-end investment. If designed with foresight, it could serve as the foundation for a paid light-attack variant — for example, an AT-6B — in much the same way the P-51D builds upon the free TF-51D.

 

Additionally, lowering the entry barrier could help grow the active player base, particularly among those who currently feel overwhelmed or sidelined by the sim’s complexity. In the long run, that kind of community growth could well justify the upfront development effort.

 

I really appreciate the discussion — it helps refine the idea and keep things grounded.

[PawlaczGMD]

TBH I don't think a two-seater is that relevant to onboarding new people. It's already a niche game, finding someone to act as your personal instructor for free (who has to know the trainer aircraft), coordinating this effort, communicating etc. is more work than just learning yourself or watching a video.

You can barely get people to use comms of any kind in MP servers. You really think the first thing a new guy will do is find an instructor and get on a call with him? I would definitely not do that as a new player.

Two-seaters provide some benefit for sure, but I am skeptical of how often they're used to train new people. They are definitely not necessary because you don't die IRL if you crash.

Edited 16 hours ago by PawlaczGMD

[draconus]

3 minutes ago, PawlaczGMD said:

you don't die IRL if you crash

I'm pretty sure pilots die IRL.

[PawlaczGMD]

1 minute ago, draconus said:

I'm pretty sure pilots die IRL.

You don't die IRL if you crash in DCS. You die IRL if you crash IRL. You die in DCS if you crash in DCS  

[draconus]

30 minutes ago, Luca Kowalski said:

Still, I think it’s worth noting that DCS already includes a free full-fidelity aircraft in the TF-51D Mustang.

Yes but only because they already sold P-51D and could provide TF-51D, 2 years later, with minimal effort.

Note that AT-6B has more powerful engine and reinforced structure so it's not just an avionics, sensors and weapons upgrade, which means also FM model changes.

I don't argue when someone just want to fly particular aircraft and we even have a few trainers in DCS but they are not needed at all in that role for the game unless you really want to recreate RL trainings.

If someone feels overwhelmed there are Flaming Cliffs aircraft to ease up the first steps. As already said all available to try for 2 weeks for free.

[SharpeXB]

35 minutes ago, Luca Kowalski said:

Still, I think it’s worth noting that DCS already includes a free full-fidelity aircraft in the TF-51D Mustang. While it’s not armed, it’s fully clickable and system-accurate — which shows that ED sees value in offering deep content to ease people in.

It’s worth realizing that is a very old module and the spin-off of a paid product. And a simpler aircraft. 

38 minutes ago, Luca Kowalski said:

If designed with foresight, it could serve as the foundation for a paid light-attack variant — for example, an AT-6B — in much the same way the P-51D builds upon the free TF-51D.

You’ve got it backwards. The paid combat variant would come first, then possibly followed by a free trainer version. 

41 minutes ago, Luca Kowalski said:

Additionally, lowering the entry barrier could help grow the active player base, particularly among those who currently feel overwhelmed or sidelined by the sim’s complexity.

A full fidelity trainer would be just as complex as one of the combat aircraft. So why bother? New players don’t need “training” here like IRL because this is a game. A 14 year old kid could tech themselves to fly an F-14 here in a few hours. Honestly I think trainers more appeal to enthusiast players who are simply interested in different aircraft. But they don’t help any with the learning curve or draw new players in. They’d literally just be another aircraft to learn. A player here wouldn’t buy and learn a trainer if they really want an F-14. They’d just go buy the F-14. 

[Luca Kowalski]

I get where you're coming from — most people in DCS do tend to dive in solo and figure it out by themselves, often because there isn’t really an alternative.

But that’s not the kind of player I’m thinking about. My friends — and frankly, most gamers I know — aren’t intimidated by depth, they’re intimidated by entry barriers. If something looks too complex, they won’t even give it a shot.

A modern, free two-seater would allow people like me to simply say:
“Hey, just hop in with me. I’ll fly, you sit back and look around — no installs, no keybinds, just enjoy the ride.”

That kind of experience is incredibly powerful. It’s low effort, high impact, and suddenly what looked like a hardcore sim becomes something personal and exciting.

Sure, not everyone wants to play instructor — but for those of us who do, this could finally make it fun and frictionless to bring friends in.

And once you’ve shared the sky with someone like that, it becomes so much easier for them to take the next step — and start discovering the rabbit hole.

And since that kind of gamer likely represents the majority, I genuinely believe it could be worth it for ED to explore this path — not just to support existing players, but to grow the community in a sustainable way.

[SharpeXB]

12 minutes ago, Luca Kowalski said:

aren’t intimidated by depth, they’re intimidated by entry barriers.

Isn’t the idea of buying and learning two different aircraft an entry barrier? As it is now anyone can grab a module on sale or do a free trial and get started. If they’re interested enough. Odds are they’re just not interested. 

16 minutes ago, Luca Kowalski said:

Hey, just hop in with me. I’ll fly, you sit back and look around — no installs, no keybinds, just enjoy the ride.”

That kind of experience is incredibly powerful. It’s low effort, high impact

I think you might be overestimating the appeal here. Getting a ride in a real jet = awesome! Getting a ride in a video game airplane… yeah not so much.

[Luca Kowalski]

20 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Isn’t the idea of buying and learning two different aircraft an entry barrier? As it is now anyone can grab a module on sale or do a free trial and get started. If they’re interested enough. Odds are they’re just not interested. 

I think you might be overestimating the appeal here. Getting a ride in a real jet = awesome! Getting a ride in a video game airplane… yeah not so much.

I see where you’re coming from — for someone already deep into DCS, the idea of a “ride-along” might not sound very exciting. But that’s the thing: you’re not the target audience.

 

The idea isn’t to impress sim veterans — it’s about giving hesitant newcomers a gentle, low-friction way in, ideally guided by someone they know.

 

You mentioned that buying and learning two planes might be a barrier — but that’s exactly why this idea suggests making the first one free. No need to buy two planes. No commitment. No pressure.

 

Just:

“Hop in the back seat while I fly. Take a look around. If you like it, you can try flying later.”

 

Compared to the TF-51D, a modern two-seater would offer a better fit for first steps — intuitive avionics, multiplayer training, and something that feels more like a real-world trainer.

 

It’s not about the thrill. It’s about the connection — and making the world of DCS feel accessible instead of intimidating.

[SharpeXB]

8 minutes ago, Luca Kowalski said:

It’s not about the thrill. It’s about the connection — and making the world of DCS feel accessible instead of intimidating.

I’m sure we all wish there was a way to popularize this genre. But I think it’s just a niche by its very nature. What’s interesting is that the civy flight sims are massively more popular despite being just as complex or potentially even more so. So I don’t think that’s it. And DCS already has less complex aircraft options. 

Edited 14 hours ago by SharpeXB

[draconus]

8 hours ago, Luca Kowalski said:

But that’s not the kind of player I’m thinking about. My friends — and frankly, most gamers I know — aren’t intimidated by depth, they’re intimidated by entry barriers. If something looks too complex, they won’t even give it a shot.

What entry barrier? Almost all modules are free to test and 2 are free permanently. Be it by yourself or with a friend as an instructor in the two seat trainer - it's all there already. For single player you just click Instant Action and you fly - just like I do it with 5-10 year old kids I used to let play my DCS. "OK, I fly, how to shoot? You click here, now gun trigger is working. Cool!"

One thing at a time you learn if you want. Most don't want to learn. They just want to play. DCS lets you do that too but that'd be just like testing vehicles in WT.

How seating back seat while your friend is flying is better than good video tutorial or a mission walkthrough with comments? You can take over the stick and ask questions. But you can't pause or rewind like in a tutorial. You don't see what your friend is doing or clicking. That's bad for learning.

Again, I'm not against Texan. It's cool aircraft, alright. What learning possibilites it would bring as a new free 2-seater trainer? None. It's all already here with L-39 or C-101.

[cfrag]

20 hours ago, 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.

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.

What I would like to see is if ED invested in tech that allows two people to fly the same plane (provided they both own it), so an expert can sit with a tyro, and talk them through or even set up the plane and they then can hand off to each other. But an actual trainer? With apologies for the cheap pun: won't fly.

[SharpeXB]

Sharing screens on Discord is a good way to turn any aircraft into a “dual trainer”

[Andurula]

This whole, "are trainers useful in DCS" discussion that goes on endlessly is so pointless because ED doesn't know if they are making a simulator or a computer game.  They try to market DCS as both and the two groups of people they attract have very different motives and ideas for how the client should be used.

As a "game", sure trainers may not have a "point" besides being fun in their own right. You can grab an F/A-18 module, read a Chuck's guide and be slinging AMRAAMs in half an hour.

As a "simulator" there are aspects of instruction that the trainers excel at that the more "advanced" modules cannot replicate.  Very few people in DCS really care about those aspects but they are relevant to some.  For the vast majority of DCS players, "you don't know what you don't know" and they are fine with that.

At the end of the day, it should be easy for people to do what works for them but for some reason, this endless fight goes around and around because people feel that THEIR way of using DCS is the only RIGHT way to use DCS.

For some people, a trainer makes sense.  For others, a trainer is a waste of time.  Trying to impose your view of how DCS should be used and what modules are useful is never going to work when people are trying to get very different things out of it.

 

To each their own.

[SharpeXB]

1 minute ago, Andurula said:

ED doesn't know if they are making a simulator or a computer game.  They try to market DCS as both and the two groups of people they attract have very different motives and ideas for how the client should be used.

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. 

[cfrag]

6 minutes ago, Andurula said:

ED doesn't know if they are making a simulator or a computer game.

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  . 

[Czar66]

On 5/5/2025 at 6:59 AM, SOLIDKREATE said:

I'd vote for the AT-6B personally.

 

 

Razbam was working on an A-29. Rest in Dreams, A-29...

[Luca Kowalski]

1 minute ago, Czar66 said:

Razbam was working on an A-29. Rest in Dreams, A-29...

Yeah, I was really looking forward to that one...

[erniedaoage]

This whole thing with veterans teaching beginners could work, if ED would implement an official service for it through their website and new players have an easy access to the service. Click on a link, fill out a form, wait for the response of an instructor to get your training lessons going. They could add a L39 without the weapon systems for free probably for exactly that purpose. 

The entry barrier is a completely different thing in my eyes, because it's still a lot of work to setup everything and if you don't have a lot of experience with setting up games and controls, everything is overwhelming. 

 

[=475FG= Dawger]

30 years ago, there was an online multiplayer flying game.
 

This game had dot commands you could type into the chat buffer. 
 

One of them was .shanghai <player>

 

This command stuck the shanghaied player into the cockpit of the person doing the command. There were other dot commands that locked or unlocked the views so the shanghaied player either saw exactly what you saw or was free to look around. 
 

It was the best training tool. MUCH better than a tandem cockpit where you have no clue what the student is doing or looking at. 
 

And much less coding effort to implement.