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

NO, it will take away time and resources from developing what is at the core of DCS, COMBAT.

Not saying absolutely no and never, but there are too many holes in DCS as well as too many things in need of fixing or updating which simply has much higher priority than adding civilian aircraft.

For starters we have a whole branch of warfare totally absent from DCS - ASW, practically making any naval helicopter (which at sea is probably the most effective ASW platform) but because ASW is totally absent with no underwater and no ASW, no underwater weaponry or sensors - like at all.

After 2.5 apart from theatres, weather, AI etc the other key missing thing which is much desired is a full 3D editor - akin to say Arma 3's EDEN editor as a comparison.

Then there's new aircraft, new vehicles, new objects

And then we do low priority stuff, at the moment all of our theatres are combat theatres one way or another (even if one is a quasi-simulated combat theatre) these kind of aircraft really require something like a world map or at least a map encompassing a country (something like a map of the whole of the UK and surrounding area for instance - but this means even more work).

So at the moment, it's a no from me until things with higher priority get done (though I'd imagine with no classified systems, no fancy avionics and just a flight model to worry about these would might be easy (on relative terms) than combat aircraft but again, only once higher priority features, bugs and requests are done/considered should we see aircraft such as the ones proposed.

155 replies .... how many were a YES ?

No. Go to FSX.

No, I want to stay in "DCS". The idea is to use an elementary Instructor Plane without leaving the simulator.

Definitely a No from this guy.

I get some people want basics and ED has supplied a number of them already. There's far more relevant aircraft that could be focused on such as the F-15, F-16, Full professional internal and external Migs/SU's. For me personally, with the Harrier, Tomcat and Hornet I'm more than happy to see more resources put on maps than anything else but a close second would be Russian air frames as well as red/blue weapons systems simply to better the realism as a 1980's based combat simulator.

A common argument I've found here is that the development of civilian, piston driven trainer would divert resources from more important projects, such as an F-15, F-16, and other types of military jets that have come to symbolize DCS. Allow me to make a rebuttal to this often spoken claim.

Producing modern modules such as the A-10C, the F-15, and the F-16 is and will continue to be incredibly expensive and resource consuming. However, despite these expenditures, the demand for these modules is high - thus they sell well and turn the highest profits, correct? That's where you're wrong, buster.

If you read the post Wags made, A letter from Eagle Dynamics he states a bullet point that I think is the strongest argument we have in favor of an aircraft like this thread is calling for.

We could deliver modern, complicated aircraft faster than we and our 3rd parties are already doing, but growing a business needs more and more revenue to grow the team and make better products. We were very surprised to find that the investment vs. generated revenue has been excellent for the World War II aircraft. In fact, the P-51D Mustang has twice the cost effectiveness of the A-10C Warthog.

The A-10C is currently what many would consider "DCS's flagship module," and has been for years. I have little doubt in my mind that the A-10C is probably the highest selling DCS module, barring perhaps Flaming Cliffs 3. But yet, a much less selling P-51D module has twice the cost effectiveness?

Let me ask a question. If generation 4+ fighter modules are in such high demand, why are we not swimming in them? I mean, all businesses want to produce as much profit as they can, so it would make sense to develop these modules in such high demand? Right?..

No, because of cost effectiveness. Like I said, these modules are incredibly resource consuming to develop. The return on the investment the developers get is too small because of the significantly higher expenditures.

Thus, developers are more likely to produce modules they believe will generate the highest returns, not the highest sales, and often times, the best selling-product a company produces isn't always the one that generates the highest net profit.

So.. we're never going to get those Generation 4+ fighters we all want?

No, I'm not saying that. There is hope that one day we will be swimming in these modules, but if we want to ever see that day, we as a community have a responsibility - making these modules profitable for the developers.

What's "nice" about the development costs of these modern modules is that their development costs are rather fixed. It doesn't matter if one person purchases it, or if one million people purchase it, the development cost will remain largely fixed.

So, in order to increase the profit yielded from the development of modern modules to make them more cost effective, and thus see increased development on these modules, we must increase the number of people who buy these modules! How can we do that?...

Easily! I'm way oversimplifying here, but the larger the consumer pool (the DCS community in this case) is, the more sales these modules will see.

If we want to make these modules profitable and thus see more of them developed, we need to expand DCS's community. And how exactly do we do that?

Develop a diverse range of modules! Because of DCS's power as a flight simulator, I guarantee civilian aircraft will generate quite a lot of interest from other corners of the flight simulation community and draw new pilots in, which is what DCS needs. Think about it! Jimmy is flying his little Cessna in a DCS multiplayer server, and sees an F-14 pass overhead at 500 knots while rolling inverted. I'm willing to bet little Cessna Jimmy will want to do what he just watched that F-14 do because it looked so cool. I'd say the odds are good that little Jimmy will soon purchase Heatblur's F-14 module...

If a third party developer produces a very well known civilian aircraft such as the Cessna 172, for example, and it fails sell well and attract new pilots, I will livestream myself to YouTube eating my own socks.

Those are just my thoughts.

I think a T-6 Texan would be awesome in the sim. Texan II would be cool too but the original T-6 is cooler. I honestly wouldn't mind if GA aircraft were introduced for the sake of progression and learning, tho it wouldn't be my preference. I just don't want to see ED divert resources to do it!

I'd be perfectly happy with a new third-party specializing in prop trainers/ GA training aircraft to take advantage of the elite flight modeling possible in DCS.

I will say that I came from FSX and without spending 6months learning procedure and navigation I'd be pretty clueless about aviation. DCS has no direct means of teaching these basics and I doubt ED wants people to have to resort to another sim in order to learn how to fly properly.

Yes. I like GA aircraft and it will help the community by attracting developers and players.

Having a wide reach could propel the sim to new heights.

Disagree. This would be a wasted effort for DCS. First there already are trainer aircraft and trainer prop planes, the TP-51 and the Yak-52

There’s even a Garmin GPS for those that want practice with a civilian type nav system.

But DCS is formost a combat simulator. Not a civilian one. If players are looking for that experience there are other sim products more suited to that like X-Plane, P3D and FSX

Civilian sims need bigger worldwide maps, real dynamic weather conditions, accurate airports all over the globe, realistic ATC etc. those features are really superfluous to a combat sim.

DCS already suffers a bit from a rather disjointed plane set. Even the modern trainers have little purpose here it seems. So expanding off into general aviation is a misguided notion. And again the game engine just isn’t suited for it.

It’s a great idea for anyone completely new to aviation and sims to get some basic learning in a civy sim, some of which have a free demo and flight school missions.

Civilian sims need bigger worldwide maps, real dynamic weather conditions, accurate airports all over the globe, realistic ATC etc. those features are really superfluous to a combat sim.

Just on this point: Only if you're simulating global planes.

Ever heard of bush planes and bush pilots? Or flying doctors? They're civil aviation.

They don't fly global. They don't often use ATC (half the strips are just clearings). And we've already got dynamic weather in DCS.

All of your "requirements" are moot if you're not flying the big airliners.

Throw in other types of civil such as SAR, fire fighting, etc... and the same is true.

Edit:

To be clear, I think the people who willingly fly virtual airliners doing A-to-B for 6 hour stints are a weird bunch, but there's more to civil that just those mad people.

Just on this point: Only if you're simulating global planes.

 

Ever heard of bush planes and bush pilots? Or flying doctors? They're civil aviation.

 

They don't fly global. They don't often use ATC (half the strips are just clearings). And we've already got dynamic weather in DCS.

 

All of your "requirements" are moot if you're not flying the big airliners.

 

Throw in other types of civil such as SAR, fire fighting, etc... and the same is true.

 

Edit:

To be clear, I think the people who willingly fly virtual airliners doing A-to-B for 6 hour stints are a weird bunch, but there's more to civil that just those mad people.

Just pointing out some obvious differences between products. In any case GA aircraft for DCS would be a giant misallocation of resources. They are already done very well in other sims.

If players want trainer aircraft, there already are training aircraft in DCSW, the Hawk, Albatross, Tiger II, TP-51 etc. along with tutorial missions.

these are the type of trainers military pilots would use anyways. Having a Cessna or Piper in this sim would be really pointless.

Let’s not encourage scope creep in this sim. The only thing that the ED team should concern themselves with at the moment is getting v 2.5 completed.

I’m going to start a thread asking for a DCS Zeppelin. That would make as much sense. Get real guys... :doh:

And how's my publication thread going, up to here?

The thing is like this:

- 35% have said yes

Against a 60% NO

And a 5% that is not decided

(Approximately)

Which tells me, it's not a bad idea. If I continue incisiting, I will surely reach the goal and even more that 50% say YES and surpass it, which results in a number of public that would support and buy a small helix plane like Cessna or Piper for elementary training in DCS .

There is still a long way to go ... :D

Dare to add a poll and see what happens to those numbers?

Dare to add a poll and see what happens to those numbers?

+1 good idea

As long as it was an armed T6 Texan II, then not a waste of time at all.

Dare to add a poll and see what happens to those numbers?

I think that with the current publication is enough ..

I would also like to see a poll, but if you would rather just count posts, +1 for no.

I'll come back for a second bite.

If ED get:

• ATC fixed, then vastly expanded
  
• Get AI to use it
  
• Broaden the map scale
  
• Provide the civilian AI models
  
• Get AI using normal western approach patterns
  
• Produce a complex weather simulation using downloaded METAR info
  
• Generate more complex weather patterns and clouds
  
• Provide proper in game flight planning for multiplayer
  
• Bring the simple Radio tool in house directly and expand features with IFF and transponder simulation
  

THEN

I might even start using it for civilian work instead of last centuries sims with their poorer graphics but ultimately better civilian features in every other aspect.

DCS isn't even ready to do civilian, the entire question of civilian use is too early. I'd be up for the additional revenue that the civilian theatre might provide, to propel DCS's premier military jets, just like Normandy and WW2, but I'm yet to see evidence that DCS can readily support what a real GA sim enthusiast really NEEDS to enjoy a simulation of GA.

Therefore my response is still no, because it's an out of scope development gamble without any obvious move from the developers to support it and would require an under the hood game feature overhaul to bring it in line.

New GA sim enthusiast: Hey does DCS have Air Traffic Control modelled?

DCS: No but we have it in development!

New GA sim enthusiast: Cool! I'm in, when is it due for release?

DCS: Well we mentioned we are working on it around 4 years ago.

...

No. Not nessary, since DCS is a simulator, and not real life. Actual virtual study simulators are in fact one of the setps real life pilots usually go through before stepping into a real aircraft anyhow.

Perhaps we also need to Add a Virtual Simulator within a Virtual Simulator that is DCS? :megalol:

Look we dont have to worry like IRL about damaging expensive aircraft from mistakes or outright killing ourselves. I think Jet trainers like the L39, Hawk and C101 are enough as starters for new comers or for use as aerobatic aircraft.

We dont need super slow unarmed pistons.

ITs digital combat simulator, Not Digital Civilian Flight simulator. There are other sims for Unarmed Civilian aircraft.

I'll come back for a second bite.

If ED get:

 

• ATC fixed, then vastly expanded
  
• Get AI to use it
  
• Broaden the map scale
  
• Provide the civilian AI models
  
• Get AI using normal western approach patterns
  
• Produce a complex weather simulation using downloaded METAR info
  
• Generate more complex weather patterns and clouds
  
• Provide proper in game flight planning for multiplayer
  
• Bring the simple Radio tool in house directly and expand features with IFF and transponder simulation
  

THEN

 

I might even start using it for civilian work instead of last centuries sims with their poorer graphics but ultimately better civilian features in every other aspect.

 

DCS isn't even ready to do civilian, the entire question of civilian use is too early. I'd be up for the additional revenue that the civilian theatre might provide, to propel DCS's premier military jets, just like Normandy and WW2, but I'm yet to see evidence that DCS can readily support what a real GA sim enthusiast really NEEDS to enjoy a simulation of GA.

 

Therefore my response is still no, because it's an out of scope development gamble without any obvious move from the developers to support it and would require an under the hood game feature overhaul to bring it in line.

 

New GA sim enthusiast: Hey does DCS have Air Traffic Control modelled?

DCS: No but we have it in development!

New GA sim enthusiast: Cool! I'm in, when is it due for release?

DCS: Well we mentioned we are working on it around 4 years ago.

...

This, this and absolutely this

Seriously can a post be more correct?

And what nonsense is stopping me from giving this rep? BAHHHHH

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

Nope. I think the village has spoken. :)