Jump to content

Collecting Signatures for ED to design piston aircraft for elementary flight trainer


Spook

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No, No, and No!

 

There is X-Plane, FSX and P3D to name a few that are set up for civilian flight support and include a myriad of aircraft, ATC, flight planning tools, weather simulation (including "real" weather) and numerous vendors that supply products and aircraft.

 

These sims are all "study sims" and are every bit as complex and demanding as anything DCS has to offer the serious flight simmer.

 

If you have a serious itch for a civilian flight sim, I suggest you try one of the sims above and further suggest that you're beating a dead horse here.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

3rd Mar Div

RVN '66-'67

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCS is the best flight simulator out there for me at the moment. (Anyone try flying a helo on anything else?)

 

DCS has a far superior FDM, far superior damage/failure modelling - because something is better than nothing. FSX/P3D only have prescripted failures and that's it - if you do break something/overstress something - the screen just freezes, you get an error message and you are returned to the hangar.

 

But here are the shortcomings of DCS as a civil flight simulator.

  • Map size (small) - but comparatively better made
  • Primitive weather system that's lacking a lot of features
  • Primitive ATC system that doesn't always work as expected (landing into tailwinds for instance).

 

But here's what it does better

  • Graphics: Superior to anything else I've seen at a fraction of the price - and post 2.5 for free!
  • Performance: intertwined with graphics makes it more amazing - DCS looks and feels closer to reality from the get go without any farting around and post 2.5 it will be so for free!
  • FDM: DCS has the best FDM I've ever used - in FSX/P3D helicopters barely behave like helicopters - they behave like a Short SC.1, it's also practically impossible to get things to depart from normal flight like spins - you can just about stall something - but it's always incredibly predictable regardless of airframe.
  • Mission editor: FSX/P3D don't even have one last time I checked, apart from choosing an aircraft, a place, time and date and weather. There are addons but these are addons you normally have to pay for to get more advanced routing. If you can find one for free it's a separate application regardless.
  • Camera system: AFAIK you have to pay for an addon (which by the way costs $34.95USD) just to add proper cameras that you can move around - DCS gives you them for free and they work much better in my experience.
  • Damage Modelling: And no, not just from a combat perspective, from doing hard landings, overstressing airframes, crashing and striking - when I first transitioned from FSX to DCS I landed the Su-25T hard and heard a bang - I looked outside and a tyre had burst and I was just :surprise: nothing before had done that - I couldn't believe that even the individual tyres are taken into account. And this was before I had even paid for anything!
  • More immersive maps from multiple altitudes.
  • Post DCS 2.5 we will have spectacular, and I mean spectacular, terrain for free!
  • Terrain that supports air, land and sea - not just air.

 

Like what Pikey said, it's more difficult because the shortcomings of DCS are important to people. DCS isn't ready for GA simmers just yet.

 

NO CIVILIAN PLANES in DCS, go to X-plane, Pre Par 3d, FSX, Aerofly FS 1 & 2 etc

NO WAY-NOT HERE, this is a combat sim

 

Quick somebody hide the Yak-52 and Christen Eagle II before anyone notices!

 

Combat simulator means nothing - it's a name. I know of a shop called card factory yet you can buy gift-boxes, helium balloons, badges, banners and soft toys... Strange right? I also went into PC world once, and didn't buy a PC, but instead purchased some batteries, but I also found some phones, TVs, even vacuum cleaners. heck look at the F-117, it has an F in front, even though it's only really a bomber, but then again, it only holds 2 and is a single-seat aircraft and xxxx, yyyy, zzzz the debate goes on forever...

 

 

The. Name. Does. Not. Matter.

 

 

DCS is a flight simulator focusing on combat aircraft, with aspects of land and sea too (does all 3 the best of any of it's direct competitors IMHO, it's far ahead for something that is predominantly a flight simulator). Why would ED want to turn aircraft down because they're not perfectly aligned with the precise name of the simulator? It's nonsensical - especially when adding non-combat aircraft doesn't suddenly, magically make DCS less of a combat simulator... I have no idea why some thing it does - I just don't get it... I mean sure priority, but that's hardly a reason to just boycott something totally.

 

Consider what I do in DCS 80-90% of the time - flying around, practising flying - I barely do any combat, at all. And when I do it's not much, by any standard. I enjoy flying the aircraft enough to fully enjoy the experience and appreciate DCS and purchase the modules. This is because a.) I suck at combat and b.) I don't play DCS enough to get good at flying and practice combat - my 'OCD' prevents me from doing something in the wrong order, because I try to emulate reality as much as I can(-ish) - I prefer to learn on basic stuff and then step up - following a learning curve, like you do for real. I prefer to start flying something simple to get the basics right then step up to something more advanced with a more advanced flight envelope and then transition to the real thing as it were. Lets pretend the Su-27/MiG-29 are full fidelity modules. Here's what I'd do, ideally, start with Yak-52 -> L-39C -> Su-27/MiG-29 this follows a learning curve and is much easier for me to get to grips with more complicated aircraft. I find the A-10C really quite daunting to get the full use out of it - it's complicated and it takes a while to learn, so I'm leaving it in the hangar and learning the TF-51D and the F-5E.

 

That's why I will buy the Yak-52 - as well as the fact that it's a new face, an acrobatic aircraft and is something different for a change. Plus aircraft like the Yak-52 aren't going to have any part of them classified, or overly complicated; SMEs are going to be easier to access, as well as documentation; licensing them is easier and all in all they can be perfected faster and serve as technology demonstrators whilst at the same time generating revenue, it's a win, win, win, win situation. Modern combat aircraft on the other hand are: complicated and take ages to get to early access let alone release (and by ages I mean significant fractions of the human lifespan); have classified systems that have to be guestimated at best, if not totally absent; SMEs are very difficult to access; licensing is vastly more difficult (certainly more expensive) or impossible. I mean, these are some of the precise reasons why the most modern Russian fixed-wing aircraft we have at the moment is the MiG-21Bis and the reason why full-fidelity modern combat aircraft are so sparse (at the moment we have the A-10C, the Mirage 2000C, the AV-8B NA, the AJS-37 (out of service) and the soon to be F/A-18C - that's a grand total of 5 and 1 of them still WIP). And even things as simple (or as you might think) as a GPS system had to have their name changed for licensing reasons (GNS430 referred to as NS430 in DCS).

 

DCS stole me from FSX because for me DCS is better to the hills and back where it matters IMO - it's pros over FSX is way over it's cons - best mix of FDM, graphics and immersion. Why should we only be restricted to 1 niche of aircraft?

 

Sure priority - priority is important when the number of aircraft (especially full fidelity ones) is comparatively small and I fully understand the need to prioritise but to wipe out certain aircraft is nonsensical, essentially when we're getting them whether you like it or not.

 

Don't forget that AEW&C aircraft and similar ISTAR aircraft, as well as tactical and strategic airlifters are essentially civilian aircraft painted differently with different equipment mounted on them, but from the pilot's perspective, flying them would be the exact same experience apart from maybe a defensive aspect, otherwise I strongly doubt you'd be able to tell the difference from flying an E-3 sentry to a standard Boeing 707...

 

Nevermind

this has a 2:1 ratio of being in favour, I think my work is done...
Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a trainer of some sort is a good idea but not a Cessna or something civilian like that. Something more military would be appropriate rather than just a spamcan.

Proud owner of:

PointCTRL VR : Finger Trackers for VR -- Real Simulator : FSSB R3L Force Sensing Stick. -- Deltasim : Force Sensor WH Slew Upgrade -- Mach3Ti Ring : Real Flown Mach 3 SR-71 Titanium, made into an amazing ring.

 

My Fathers Aviation Memoirs: 50 Years of Flying Fun - From Hunter to Spitfire and back again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
I still think, that a civil airplane of elementary training is necessary in the simulator, for that reason I keep on incising ..

 

 

its really not as there is aircraft that can already fit that role "TF-51" and with the YAK coming out its covered. :thumbup:

 

 

honestly i dont think there will ever truely be a place for unarmed aircraft In dcs you also have to take in consideration who ED/FC's main customers are look at the TBS page and you can see where the revenue is Everything In DCS correlates to Products offered in TBS and vis versa.

whats created here is used there and whats created there is used here.

 

Now

if you tweak your request from unarmed civilian trainers to Light attack / Trainers you have something as even the large air forces are starting to notice the usefulness and cost effectiveness of low and slow turboprops. Ex. AT-6B Wolverine, A-29 Super Tacano.

 

As well as being an initial trainer,:pilotfly:

 

the multi role AT-6, and A-29 are capable of performing missions including: light attack, combat search and rescue (CSAR), close air support, forward air control and convoy escort, homeland defense (border security), port security, counter-narcotics operations and civil missions such as disaster area reconnaissance, search and rescue and firefighting. combined with long loiter time as compared to turbine powered aircraft at a low cost per flight hr.

 

they can be armed w 50. cals, mini guns, lazer guided rockets, smart or dummy bombs, AIM-9, AGM-65, AGM-114 or other weapon systems based on avionics fitted western or others.

 

and as I mentioned before the A-29 is already on the road map so only additional craft to add for more flavor and near the A-29 performance is the wolverine with a basic flight campaign and a COIN campaign tied to the NTTR map your covered and that map would then fit really well with the aircraft since the name implies :smartass: Training.

 

and for mission planners you have a perfect mix for High/ Low fixed wing attack. with the addition of light attack turbo- prop without using rotary wing

Rift CV1: i-7 8700 RTX 2070 16GB 3200mhz win10. M.2 128gb GB Z390 Aurous Master. warthog stick on Gunfighter Base

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi, yes, I am the scrub and I would like the weigh in this subject. I am not just on board with a training series involving civilian aircraft, but fully on board for civilian aviation in DCS in general.

 

For starters, the other "civil flight sims" people point out to. I have been playing FSX for quite a long time, I like it, i really do, but, it doesn't simulate people like DCS, entering and exiting and seeing them interact in the cockpit, And dont get me started on hit boxes on scenery, You cant fly under a bridge and you can't even land on a random building with a helicopter, and no damage modeling. Lastly, even the steam edition is having performance issues, it is obsolete. Flight sim world doesn't seem to be doing all that better and I have never played X-plane, so I cant really tell. So, what many of you have ignored is that DCS is a better simulator than the rest. That's why I would like it better in DCS.

 

My second subject is that there is one argument and one argument only against it. ED have their hands full, and they really can't do it. The rest is just gatekeeping. What are you guys gonna do if devs like aerosoft, cerenado and alabeo jump in and start developing civil aircraft for DCS?!

 

Now bring me the Yak-40 and the An-2

 

this guy knows whats uphttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCJVvdhJ0TM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I truly doubt that many of the people here saying "go to FSX, XPlane, and P3D" have actually flown GA in those sims.

 

DCS's flight modeling is so much more powerful and far superior to what can be done by third parties in those sims. Flight modeling here in DCS makes even PMDG's content look like a child's work, and that speaks volumes about DCS's potential and power.

 

I am overjoyed to see a Yak52 in development.... paving the road for a western trainer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCS's flight modeling is so much more powerful and far superior to what can be done by third parties in those sims. Flight modeling here in DCS makes even PMDG's content look like a child's work, and that speaks volumes about DCS's potential and power.

 

:thumbup:

PC: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X | MSI Suprim GeForce 3090 TI | ASUS Prime X570-P | 128GB DDR4 3600 RAM | 2TB Samsung 870 EVO SSD | Win10 Pro 64bit

Gear: HP Reverb G2 | JetPad FSE | VKB Gunfighter Pro Mk.III w/ MCG Ultimate

 

VKBNA_LOGO_SM.png

VKBcontrollers.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T-6 / SNJ or a T-28?

 

Hell Yes!

 

OOOOh T-28! Hadn't even thought of that... Would be cool :D:thumbup:

 

oe-esa-red-bull-the-flying-bulls-north-american-t-28b-trojan_PlanespottersNet_720293_3883c74aa6.jpg

 

Rumble Rumble Rumble

 

 

Thinking about it its basically an american version of the Yak-52 ;)


Edited by Deano87

Proud owner of:

PointCTRL VR : Finger Trackers for VR -- Real Simulator : FSSB R3L Force Sensing Stick. -- Deltasim : Force Sensor WH Slew Upgrade -- Mach3Ti Ring : Real Flown Mach 3 SR-71 Titanium, made into an amazing ring.

 

My Fathers Aviation Memoirs: 50 Years of Flying Fun - From Hunter to Spitfire and back again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not adverse to civil aircraft, as they're a reality of operations even in combat zones. A lot of people need to come to terms with that.

 

But, at the same time, as nice as the DCS engine is, why? DCS's theatre focus can't be terribly useful for anything bigger than a King Air. Furthermore, there's no real need for trainers. Trainers exist to save pilots and airframes. Unless a trainer has a light-attack function, it's going to be a pretty hard sell. After all, lawndarting doesn't result in a replacement order going to LockMart and an empty coffin being lowered into the ground with what remains were found. A second chance is but a "restart mission" away.

 

This will get lost in the cacophony of angry screaming.


Edited by MiG21bisFishbedL

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not outright opposed, for example ED wanted to do the Yak so they can show us core details of how they 'do it'.

 

As cichlidfan said early on, and I probably did, too in here somewhere, the RL incentives for trainer aircraft don't exist here.

 

You can take a brand new scrub and teach him on an A-10C. The aircraft's potential complexity is irrelevant. All he needs to know is how to turn it on and get basic instrument functionality running. All that fancy electronics can be left off and disused during basic.

 

Additionally DCS requires a MAJOR overhaul to provide even rudimentary GA functionality. You're not going to attract FSX or Xplane pilots in significant numbera if all you can offer is a flight model.

 

I'm not outright opposed to any aircraft except fantasy planes (I'm looking at you, Horton), but there is limited appeal for non-military aircraft here, when there's so much that needs fleshing out already.

 

Light attackers and military trainers are cool, but we don't REALLY have to have large numbers of them. We have already a trainer Mustang, and three light jet trainers, soon the Yak-52 (so at least five so far), we have the F-5 which can effectively stand in as an advanced trainer T-38with minimal application of imagination.... We have a CRAP TON of trainer or near enough aircraft. We don't need the plane by plane pipeline for each major nation in the world, when you can readily grab a 'near enough' substitute.

 

 

They're relatively easy to make, and financially appealing, I know... but we have more than enough of them already. We should be focused on far more relevant aircraft, filling some of the gaps we have in our lineup to get proper Korea/Vietnam/Cold War scenarios

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I truly doubt that many of the people here saying "go to FSX, XPlane, and P3D" have actually flown GA in those sims.

 

DCS's flight modeling is so much more powerful and far superior to what can be done by third parties in those sims. Flight modeling here in DCS makes even PMDG's content look like a child's work, and that speaks volumes about DCS's potential and power.

 

I am overjoyed to see a Yak52 in development.... paving the road for a western trainer.

 

Absolutely this! And I'm a former FSX player who has flown GA :thumbup:

 

 

GAH What's happened to the rep system? BAAAHHHH

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pilatus PC-21

X-Plane 11.5x / DCS 2.5.6 / P3Dv5 / Aerofly FS 2 / War Thunder

 

Win10-x64 | ASUS Z390 Maximus VI | Intel i7-9700K @3.6GHz | Corsair Vengeance LPX 32 GB DDR4 | 6TB SSD Samsung 850 Pro | 2TB M2 PCI 4x | ASUS GTX 1080 ROG STRIX 8GB DDR5X | TM Hotas Warthog | Saitek Combat Pedals | Oculus Rift S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only trainer module that makes sense to me is one where only one of the two users is required to purchase it. Right now L-39 is rarely used for training.

 

"Hello, I am new to DCS but don't know how to fly."

"I can teach you. You just need to buy this $59.99 module that you'll probably never fly again after 10 hours."

"...no thanks."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not going to attract FSX or Xplane pilots in significant numbera if all you can offer is a flight model.

 

But it already does attract people on that basis (See Kippy below).

 

Yes, there are plenty of GA sims that are better GA procedure sims, but not better flight sims. A reasonable number of people play DCS as a flight sim, and there are aerobatics teams that make that evident.

 

That's already true with people picking from a stable of aircraft that probably doesn't have a lot of immediate grabbers for people wanting to fly civilian aerobatics or just look at the scenery.

 

If the Yak-52's FM is as good as I expect it to be, DCS's reputation as a SIM to simulate flight, as opposed to ATC procedures, can only be enhanced & attract more players.

 

I truly doubt that many of the people here saying "go to FSX, XPlane, and P3D" have actually flown GA in those sims.

 

DCS's flight modeling is so much more powerful and far superior to what can be done by third parties in those sims. Flight modeling here in DCS makes even PMDG's content look like a child's work, and that speaks volumes about DCS's potential and power.

 

I am overjoyed to see a Yak52 in development.... paving the road for a western trainer.

 

(shame the rep system's gone)

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's a good point. If they're more interested in accurate flight behavior than 'airline tycoon' simulation... yeah, you're right. There's definitely a basis there. I always tend to view GA sims as FAA training :p The 'procedure' of things.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it already does attract people on that basis (See Kippy below).

 

Yes, there are plenty of GA sims that are better GA procedure sims, but not better flight sims. A reasonable number of people play DCS as a flight sim, and there are aerobatics teams that make that evident.

 

That's already true with people picking from a stable of aircraft that probably doesn't have a lot of immediate grabbers for people wanting to fly civilian aerobatics or just look at the scenery.

 

If the Yak-52's FM is as good as I expect it to be, DCS's reputation as a SIM to simulate flight, as opposed to ATC procedures, can only be enhanced & attract more players.

 

YASSS!!! This, this, this, this and this!

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you add the ability to train thpilot by programming the ai to act in the role of the instructor pilot. If we can program the ai to fly the basic mission as the instructor pilot then we can simulate the four fpases of thraining the explanation, where you explained the task what to look for, what to do, and what not to do and why,the the demonstration phase where you show the student pilot exactly how to preform the task. A typical mission would have several tasks associated with it and of those tasks only a few would be evaluated in the evaluation phase of training to follow the students familiaration phase where the student get to practice the task.

 

So the four phases of training are explanation, demonstration by the ip then using standard operating procedures transfer control of the aircraft to the student for the familiarization and evaluation phase if required and then transfer the controls using sops for the next task for the mission.

 

If you can get the above included in you partition that would be great because until the multi crew positions become workable for two live pilots in one aircraft the need for trainers is an illusion since there is no actual training going on . The ai meathod will just as hard would be the best method but both would be great a single mode campaign of basic aircraft training missions that someone could fly then go to a mp mode for a real ip to help with the same missions would be great the single mode could be like a sim while the map mode would be like real flight training but both would get you your basic rating, then advance ratings the the specialized ratings.. I know it’s a game, sim not real but with the fidelity and ability for the training with ratings in the dcs world it might make some of the ones with the urge to go rl an idea of what to expect and with your training aircraft they can go home practice what they learned and become better pilots both in dcs and in rl.

 

I will sign your partition if you ll also strive for mpmode and a trainable ai.

BlackeyCole 20years usaf

XP-11. Dcs 2.5OB

Acer predator laptop/ i7 7720, 2.4ghz, 32 gb ddr4 ram, 500gb ssd,1tb hdd,nvidia 1080 8gb vram

 

 

New FlightSim Blog at https://blackeysblog.wordpress.com. Go visit it and leave me feedback and or comments so I can make it better. A new post every Friday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree there should be a better prop trainer and some beginner flight training to teach newbies the basics. I also agree that the current Tf-51D and SU-25T may not be the best airplanes to start with for a newcomer to DCS. But you also have to understand that DCS has to offer airplanes that are interesting enough to entice someone to try out DCS that already has an interest in warbirds and a Cessna is not going to do it. If they did they would had gone with one of the other civilian simulators instead.

However there are other piston engine trainers that I think would be a much better fit for DCS. I would suggest the T-28 Trojan and the AT-6 Texan. Not only would they be great trainers but it would attract the interest of newcomers and veterans alike. Even in the Radio Control airplane world that I also am into these airplanes are still very popular. I for one own an RC T-28 and it has made be a much better RC pilot than my Cessna 182 ever did.

Check out how good and easy a RC T-28 is to fly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ539RtPjGg

 

 

15205.jpg

florida-warbirds001-546.jpg


Edited by Evoman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...