Jump to content

Digital Training Simulator


Rabbit_
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi guys.

 

I'm starting to be a little concerned about how the modules development and modules choice is shaping up.

I know a lot of people like a lot of different things, but three different training aircraft? Isn't it a little exaggerated? Three very talented developers are creating more or less the same aircraft. That's what I call a waste of development time. I know I know...there are many virtual aerobatic teams and maybe they will be happy to choose from different TRAINING ONLY aircraft.

But You know...this is Digital COMBAT Simulator. There should be a list of wanted and not wanted modules just to prevent this from happening.

Don't get me wrong, these modules are top quality and everything looks great, but this effort could go into some real combat aircraft or helicopter. And that's what troubles me.

 

Do You really thing, there will be a campaign for these types of aircraft.....yeah...maybe....something like....."do three loops in a row"......"go under this bridge with gear down and inverted" and so on...well, not really a campaign, right?

 

And in the end, why training aircraft? We are virtual pilots, we can afford to train with actual machines right from the scratch. I just don't get what is behind this all. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

I just don't want DCS to become FSX. I can only imagine, how the lower "modules bar" in DCS main menu will look like. Mess of icons with something not COMBAT and not DIGITAL.

 

Sometimes I don't care, sometimes it pisses me off. I'm with Eagle Dynamics since their Lock On and it was always a ride, but in recent days, reading the forum,....I feel like in some museum trip. I still don't know, what to think about Cobra. Why not more modern version? There already was a very emotive discussion. Yeah, I will buy it anyway, but what I really hate, is when the modules don't have the environment, enemy units and overall scenario to fit in. Every module is always a blast, great visuals, physics and it's fun to fly, but then You realize, You are done. You can't get into it on 100%, when You don't have believable campaign.

 

I would like to see modules, we can use to its full potential. MODERN combat jets and helicopters, we can cooperate with in multiplayer and enjoy great campaigns. Why not making a Kiowa with it's great scouting capabilities, hiding behind hills and "lasing" targets for Your buddy in A-10. I know it's easy to say "DO THIS", but that's how I thought the DCS will work. It was just an example.

 

In fact...there is only one module, living up to "digital combat" name. A-10C. Yeah...just one.

I know it takes a lot of effort, informations and time and I really love Mi-8, Uh-1 and P-51, but I think it's time to step into 21st century.

Seeing things like F/A-18, EF-2000 or AV-8 in developer's "to do" lists is damn exciting and I can only hope, there will be no more training jets to step in the way of the development of such amazing modules.

 

Mig-21 BIS is going to be released soon and yes, developer took an older jet, but decided to create one of its latest versions.

 

Aerobatic pilots hate me, others maybe don't and I don't really care anyway. This is how I see it. :thumbup:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Three trainers? Hawk, CF-101 and ?

 

If you read the reasons as to why the training aircraft are being developed, you'll know the devs are doing it because they're "easier" aircraft to make first so they can get experience with making aircraft for DCS (which is from reading, much more complex and time consuming than FSX and other flight sims, due to the requirements to make better and more detailed flight and system models).

 

Remember, we've only had two non ED modules thus far, both from one devleoper.

I'd rather all of them start small and deliver something, rather than us not get anything at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys.

 

I'm starting to be a little concerned about how the modules development and modules choice is shaping up.

 

While I can somehow understand your frustration, from a flightsim fan perspective like mine, who came to DCS forced by the unexisting quality of flight and systems modeling in Civil flight simulator platforms, I am very happy with this add-ons.

 

Please don't forget that one of the main aims of the DCS platform is to bring as far as possible realistic FDM to the sim, and that can only become possible when access to RW data is available, either because ED or partners participated in projects for RW training software, or because that data can be bought or is publicly available, something that would certainly not happen to some modern fighters...

 

I really wouldn't like to have an EF2000 when I know for sure most of what's modeled is pure guess....

 

The p51d flies as it does because the authors did extensive research and had access to RW flight data.

 

Also, these training types could be used exactly for that - training of virtual air squadrons, for those who have the time for such a kind of virtual activity :-)

Flight Simulation is the Virtual Materialization of a Dream...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three trainers? Hawk, CF-101 and ?

 

If you read the reasons as to why the training aircraft are being developed, you'll know the devs are doing it because they're "easier" aircraft to make first so they can get experience with making aircraft for DCS (which is from reading, much more complex and time consuming than FSX and other flight sims, due to the requirements to make better and more detailed flight and system models).

 

Remember, we've only had two non ED modules thus far, both from one devleoper.

I'd rather all of them start small and deliver something, rather than us not get anything at all.

 

I meant T-2 but it's not trainer. OK. But still. :smilewink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Training aircraft the hawk may be but they it is also a very capable weapons platform.

the p51 two seat was I believe asked for by public.

AMD A8-5600K @ 4GHz, Radeon 7970 6Gig, 16 Gig Ram, Win 10 , 250 gig SSD, 40" Screen + 22 inch below, Track Ir, TMWH, Saitek combat pedals & a loose nut behind the stick :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Training aircraft the hawk may be but they it is also a very capable weapons platform.

the p51 two seat was I believe asked for by public.

 

Yes...but still not usable for campaign. And I didn't say anything about T-51. It's for free.

 

BTW, I see Oculus Rift in Your specs. Is it good with DCS? Thanks.


Edited by Rabbit_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can also look at it from the other side. These 3rd party devs are only starting to develop for DCS. Doing a full-blown modern fighter as a first project might be liitle to ambitious.

Doing a simpler trainer jet is a better way to learn how to develop for DCS.

 

edit: Mi-8 is no less 21st century than F/A 18, EF...etc. ;)


Edited by winz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can also look at it from the other side. These 3rd party devs are only starting to develop for DCS. Doing a full-blown modern fighter as a first project might be liitle to ambitious.

Doing a simpler trainer jet is a better way to learn how to develop for DCS.

 

edit: Mi-8 is no less 21st century than F/A 18, EF...etc. ;)

 

Yup...I can agree on that and I also agree with Buzzles who said something similar.

But my frustration goes on. :smilewink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we look here:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

 

we can see:

 

"+L-39 Patriot Team:

--L-39 Albatros ZA/ZO: (in progress) (2014)

--L-39 Albatros C: (in progress) (late 2014)

"

 

Also there is an AlphaJet in the works by a french team. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=103799&highlight=AlphaJet

 

It has been said before. Third party teams need to learn first DCS way to create modules and they start small with simpler aircrafts.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

I5 4670k, 32GB, GTX 1070, Thrustmaster TFRP, G940 Throttle extremely modded with Bodnar 0836X and Bu0836A,

Warthog Joystick with F-18 grip, Oculus Rift S - Almost all is made from gifts from friends, the most expensive parts at least

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we look here:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

 

we can see:

 

"+L-39 Patriot Team:

--L-39 Albatros ZA/ZO: (in progress) (2014)

--L-39 Albatros C: (in progress) (late 2014)

"

 

Also there is an AlphaJet in the works by a french team. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=103799&highlight=AlphaJet

 

It has been said before. Third party teams need to learn first DCS way to create modules and they start small with simpler aircrafts.

 

At least, L-39 is made in my country. :thumbup: But now You really scared the sh** out of me. So so many little jets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can also look at it from the other side. These 3rd party devs are only starting to develop for DCS. Doing a full-blown modern fighter as a first project might be liitle to ambitious.

Doing a simpler trainer jet is a better way to learn how to develop for DCS.

 

edit: Mi-8 is no less 21st century then F/A 18, EF...etc.

 

^ This.

 

I know what you are saying, but this phase is a "necessary evil" IMHO for the Third Party Devs to ramp up in DCS. The advantages down the track however are that:

 

- we will have aircraft coming from multiple sources, rather than just ED.

- ED can concentrate on the the game engine and enhancements to that (and the odd aircraft).

- We end up with a variety of aircraft, including training aircraft (which as still fun after all).

- The Third Party Devs don't fold because they bit off more than they could chew (develop) first time around.

 

Unfortunately, its just a matter of patience. I'm sure we will get there in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VEAO is making a Tucano which I will still buy, and I will be more than happy if we still get the Typhoon next year.

And those people saying that we have 21st century planes... don't forget that the F-15 is 42 years old....

RTX 2070 8GB | 32GB DDR4 2666 RAM | AMD Ryzen 5 3600 4.2Ghz | Asrock X570 | CH Fighterstick/Pro Throttle | TM MFDs | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ This.

 

I know what you are saying, but this phase is a "necessary evil" IMHO for the Third Party Devs to ramp up in DCS. The advantages down the track however are that:

 

- we will have aircraft coming from multiple sources, rather than just ED.

- ED can concentrate on the the game engine and enhancements to that (and the odd aircraft).

- We end up with a variety of aircraft, including training aircraft (which as still fun after all).

- The Third Party Devs don't fold because they bit off more than they could chew (develop) first time around.

 

Unfortunately, its just a matter of patience. I'm sure we will get there in the end.

 

I can understand that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VEAO is making a Tucano which I will still buy, and I will be more than happy if we still get the Typhoon next year.

And those people saying that we have 21st century planes... don't forget that the F-15 is 42 years old....

 

You are certainly right, but don't forget, that F-15 or for example Mi-8 are still used in more or less modified version even today and they still have place in modern warfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been DCS pilot maybe for 9 months now and I think its the best sim right now. Flight models are just great, clickable cockpits and so on... But I have been looking for a new modules on forum for some time and I have a very similar feeling as Rabbit. I started DCS with Mustang (I really like WW2 machines), then I continued with other modules and found out, that Mustang with his campaign and game environment is just "boring" compared to others. There are many nice projects in development, but we will only get the old or training machines. We, along with Rabbit, were excited about the development of Cobra until we found out it will be the oldest of oldest model. Mig 21 looks great but will there be a fitting battle theatre? And its similar for the other new modules. For now I would be happy to have there at least clickable SU-25T.

 

I dont say dont like them. I plan to buy Hawk and Mig just to my personal interest in future. Maybe Cobra too. But I am afraid they will stand for most of the time in my virtual hangar just because they are unusable.

 

Then ask yourself how much are you glad that KA-50, Mi-8 and A-10C will still be the only modules capable to fight over Georgia?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been DCS pilot maybe for 9 months now and I think its the best sim right now. Flight models are just great, clickable cockpits and so on... But I have been looking for a new modules on forum for some time and I have a very similar feeling as Rabbit. I started DCS with Mustang (I really like WW2 machines), then I continued with other modules and found out, that Mustang with his campaign and game environment is just "boring" compared to others. There are many nice projects in development, but we will only get the old or training machines. We, along with Rabbit, were excited about the development of Cobra until we found out it will be the oldest of oldest model. Mig 21 looks great but will there be a fitting battle theatre? And its similar for the other new modules. For now I would be happy to have there at least clickable SU-25T.

 

I dont say dont like them. I plan to buy Hawk and Mig just to my personal interest in future. Maybe Cobra too. But I am afraid they will stand for most of the time in my virtual hangar just because they are unusable.

 

Then ask yourself how much are you glad that KA-50, Mi-8 and A-10C will still be the only modules capable to fight over Georgia?

 

Agree! Hardcore Su-25T module would be great. And the campaign is already prepared. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didnt say anything before becouse i didnt wanna be "that guy" but i completely agree. I dont understand why anyone would want to fly a trainer aircraft in a sim ... i was fine with the hawk becouse i thought it would only be one , and since they're a pretty famous aircraft , but now that there's 3 i'm quite confused what their devs are thinking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didnt say anything before becouse i didnt wanna be "that guy" but i completely agree. I dont understand why anyone would want to fly a trainer aircraft in a sim ... i was fine with the hawk becouse i thought it would only be one , and since they're a pretty famous aircraft , but now that there's 3 i'm quite confused what their devs are thinking

 

Such an honest post. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We just had the same discussion at lockonforum.de, and I think it boils down to just a handful points:

 

- Development time/cost/difficulty:

A simple aircraft is easier to develop than a complex one. The F-86 or the WW2-fighters or the C-101 are not quite as difficult to do as an F-18. So especially for their first projects 3rd party developers choose such simpler planes.

 

- Knowledge about the aircraft:

For a DCS level aircraft you need a pilot or mechanic or both from the real aircraft, otherwise it is really hard. So the 3rd parties do what they know. The AvioDev guys have someone proficient with the real C-101 so they build that plane, BST has a real Mi-8 pilot so they did that one.

Without that I think you can still do it, but it isn't easy. The more stuff happens in some menus in some MFCDs the harder it gets, while such conventional systems like an altimeter, an artificial horizon, a radio etc. are easier to do because you can often see how they work by just looking at a plane in a museum or in a book.

 

- Confidential stuff:

Aircraft still in use (and even those no more in use) have much more stuff that isn't too well known, and the people that know it may not be allowed to tell you. That makes it harder.

 

- License:

Well, especially if the plane is still in production, and if it isn't too old, there are problems if you want to make money with your plane for the game. I don't know how much money Textron (who owns Bell) took from BST to allow them to do the Huey, but I guess it wasn't $2.5 per copy. And they surely spent a lot of time discussing that license, just like VEAO has been with BAE for the Hawk for like, six months now.

 

So yeah, I'd also like to have more modern and complex planes. That's why I chose LockOn and DCSW. And I will support every dev who wants to create those planes as good as I can.

But I understand why 3rd party devs do what they do. It is a high risk, and it takes a long time, and it isn't easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am looking forward to getting trainer aircraft and if we get more aircraft while the devs learn the platform then all the better.

 

You don't always have to fly the flashy modern expensive aircraft to enjoy flight sims. If it came with a campaign that was tightly scripted to earn your virtual wings then even better.

Lyndiman

AMD Ryzen 3600 / RTX 2070 Super / 32G Ram / Win10 / TrackIR 5 Pro / Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS & MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actual Trainer list, From my Unofficial Roap:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

 

VEAO (And your ACTS - Air Combat Training School):

-Grob Tutor

-Short Tucano

-Bae Hawk

 

Albatros Team

-L-39 ZA/ZO/C

 

AvioDev:

-C-101EB (Trainer version)

-C-101CC (Light Attack version)

 

RAZBAM

-T-2 BuckEye

 

Many 3rd Partys have started with small things for a very good reason (DCS:World is a complicated system to understand, it takes time, money and effort, is very demanding and has a slow learning curve), the reality has shown us that the problems have not been overcome had 3rd parties has Kinney, MilVis, and RRG Studios (IRIS has a partial case). as I always say, "If you want to walk, you must first crawl. If you want to swim, you must first splash. If you want to fly, you have to jump first."

 

and remember as always, DCS: W not only focuses on the "modern" combat (even name DCS will "assume" a "single modern combat") or "only air envirotment", ED working on the land envirotment (your "DCS: Armored proyect"), and the Sea envirotment can be open on a far future.

 

The civil sector perfectly fits within the simulator. As you say with acrobatic equipment but VEAO Grob Tutor is itself a "species" of Cessma could be the first step in the civil sector. In the same way that the current UH-1H or Mil Mi-8, unarmed and in civilian camouflage can make civilian missions (totall Rescue Mission for example). Another example is the future project VEAO of tanker aircraft, if this is a VC-10 and TriStar, some "small" changes you can make in an entire plane of passengers / freight. Would not this be another one added to a DCS: Civil W, Only a matter of time, if the civil sector is starting in DCS: W, is not to be foreign to him, but to stay.


Edited by Silver_Dragon

More news to the front

Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings

My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

 

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4076891#post4076891

21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/

Silver_Dragon Youtube

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really would be very glad that DCS World engine replace fully all that FSX means... with their 3rd party developers and community. For now is just not possible but I do hope with EDGE comming out the 3rd parties communities will increase to the extent of the entire Earth size.... then... everybody, civil or military will have enough room to maneuvers... even hi-jacking :D.

 

Right now, I am very happy with the direction choosed by ED and their curent 3rd parties.

 

No other sim creates me the real feeling of keeping the joystick in my hand like DCS does.... civil or military... you are there ... as real as can gets.

Romanian Community for DCS World

HW Specs: i7-8700K@5GHz,ASUS Maximus X Hero, 32GB RAM 3000MHz, MSI Nvidia GTX 1080TI watercooled, Creative SoundBlaster Z, Intel/Samsung M.2 , VKB MCG Pro + Virpil Throttle + Leo Bodnar BU0836(A and X), MFG Crosswind, Logitech G13, TrackIR 5, Oculus Rift S, Stream Deck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, with regards to VEAO's idea of having a training campaign for all 3 of the trainers they are developing, and then moving up to the Typhoon, will be nothing short of amazing.

RTX 2070 8GB | 32GB DDR4 2666 RAM | AMD Ryzen 5 3600 4.2Ghz | Asrock X570 | CH Fighterstick/Pro Throttle | TM MFDs | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im still unclear on the reasoning or the financial sense of so many 3rd party devs doing training aircraft? Where is the $$$ in doing them?

 

How many will buy four(?!) different training jet modules? The Mig21bis? Hell yeah a historic and iconic fighter jet. The F86? Hell yeah. Same reasons. The Hawk? Hawk who?

 

Unless the devs add some kind of awesome sauce campaign, aerobatic racing mode, or whatever there is no real reason to fly any of these planes in the same old tired Georgian map scenario...

 

The trainers mean different things to different people, T-2, T-38 Talon or T-45 Goshawk means a lot more to the Americans than to anyone else, but Hawk? Hell yeah, as I Brit I want to re-enact my Red Arrows fantasies!

 

Most likely there will be as many training aircraft as there are 3rd parties, RAZBAM don't get any learning experience out of the VEAO Hawk development, as VEAO don't get any learning from the T-2 development. Everyone has to start somewhere, and their national trainers seem a pretty good place to start.

Per Ardua Ad Aquarium :drink:

Specs: Intel i7-9700K, GTX 2080TI, 32GB DDR4, ASUS ROG Strix Z390-E, Samsung 970 EVO NVMe M.2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am looking forward to getting trainer aircraft and if we get more aircraft while the devs learn the platform then all the better.

 

You don't always have to fly the flashy modern expensive aircraft to enjoy flight sims. If it came with a campaign that was tightly scripted to earn your virtual wings then even better.

 

Yeah...maybe campaign built like true flight training. Good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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