Collecting Signatures for ED to design piston aircraft for elementary flight trainer - Page 19 - ED Forums


Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-27-2018, 06:12 PM   #181
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 965

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 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.

Originally Posted by fiddlinjim View Post
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...

Originally Posted by Kippy View Post
this has a 2:1 ratio of being in favour, I think my work is done...
Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB SSD

Rest in RIP Saitek X52 Pro, you will be missed

Modules I own: AJS-37, F-14A/B, F-5E, MiG-21Bis, MiG-15Bis, Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, A-10C, UH-1H, FC3, Hawk, C-101, P-51D

Last edited by Lunatic98; 04-08-2018 at 09:26 AM.
Lunatic98 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2018, 07:39 PM   #182
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 245

It would be fun to intercept a cessna with an f-18

But also, yes I think that having a progression would make this a true study simulator. I'll be getting the Yak when it comes out.
ekg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2018, 08:05 PM   #183
Deano87's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 741

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.
Ignore me I’m probably wrong - Now with 42% extra sarcasm - May contain nuts.


My Screenshots - Excited About = PointCTRL VR
Deano87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2018, 12:55 AM   #184
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 109

Originally Posted by Spook View Post
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.

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.

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,

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 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 4790K GTx 970 12GB 2133mhz win10. M.2 128gb
Bad_Karma-701 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2018, 01:20 AM   #185
Senior Member
Emmy's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,008

T-6 / SNJ or a T-28?

Hell Yes!
High Quality Aviation Photography For Personal Enjoyment And Editorial Use.
Emmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 10:30 PM   #186
Junior Member
DrunkPilot's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: In my house
Posts: 9

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 up
DrunkPilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2018, 03:17 PM   #187
Kippy's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Angola, Indiana, USA
Posts: 246

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.

Sometimes I miss the A-10C.
Kippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2018, 03:48 PM   #188
rrohde's Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Oklahoma is OK
Posts: 3,866

Originally Posted by Kippy View Post
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.

PC: Intel Core i7-7700K 4.2GHz @ 5.1GHz | MSI GTX 1080 TI | ASUS Maximus IX Hero | 32GB DDR4 RAM | 512GB Samsung 850 PRO SSD | Win10 Pro 64bit | Oculus Rift CV1 | Samsung Odyssey+ | Jetseat 908 | Monstertech MTX Sim Rig | VKB Gunfighter Pro Mk.II w/ MCG PRO

rrohde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2018, 11:46 PM   #189
Deano87's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 741

Originally Posted by FlyingPhotog View Post
T-6 / SNJ or a T-28?

Hell Yes!
OOOOh T-28! Hadn't even thought of that... Would be cool

Rumble Rumble Rumble

Thinking about it its basically an american version of the Yak-52
Ignore me I’m probably wrong - Now with 42% extra sarcasm - May contain nuts.


My Screenshots - Excited About = PointCTRL VR

Last edited by Deano87; 03-15-2018 at 11:51 PM.
Deano87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2018, 11:52 PM   #190
Senior Member
MiG21bisFishbedL's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: 'Murrica
Posts: 1,297

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.

Move MiG. For great justice. You know what you doing. Take off every MiG.
CH Combatstick, CH Pro Throttle, CH Pro Pedals

Last edited by MiG21bisFishbedL; 03-15-2018 at 11:55 PM.
MiG21bisFishbedL is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:23 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.