Proposal: Free T-6 Texan II as modern onboarding 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 2 hours ago 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 20 minutes ago 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 13 minutes ago by SharpeXB