Digital Training Simulator

[outlawal2]

Ah my misunderstand then

 

apologises

 

Pman

 

Hey that was most certainly NOT directed at you folks...

(I was referring to the Combat Helo project...)

I personally think you guys are moving along quite nicely! And I have been a big proponent of Veao Simulations and their choice of the Hawk..

 

:thumbup:

[winz]

Yeah...simulate helicopter physics is piece of cake, man. :-)

And for example...Tricubic Studios is preparing to make Combat Helo (AH-64D Longbow Apache standalone). It means whole sim with environment, physics, helicopter systems, enemy units and everything. Mainly only three or four people are behind this. So that's what I say and I'm not telling You to accept it, but I would wait a little longer and get the combat jet right away.

I'm not even saying, You can make a BETA version and tune it on the go. Like Mi-8.

 

It's only a choice of developers. Yes,...they want to make trainer, ok. VEAO has the whole original idea behind it and that's something I didn't know and I apologized for it. But why to make shitloads of trainers to one sim, that is very mysterious for me.

No, simulating helicopter physics isn't piece of cake, where did I say that? Do you think that simulating physics for a trainer is a piece of cake?

Simulating any kind of airframe at DCS lvl is not piece of cake.

 

I will not compare a DCS level aircraft to Combat Helo, because I don't really know what the simulation fidelity will be. Considering their videos so far, I'm not really convinced it will be on par with DCS.

[Pman]

Hey that was most certainly NOT directed at you folks...

(I was referring to the Combat Helo project...)

I personally think you guys are moving along quite nicely! And I have been a big proponent of Veao Simulations and their choice of the Hawk..

 

:thumbup:

yeah the support we have had from the community has been amazing and we appreciate it deeply and thank everyone of you for it

 

Pman

[cichlidfan]

Was this aimed at us?

 

No.

[Rabbit_]

No, simulating helicopter physics isn't piece of cake, where did I say that? Do you think that simulating physics for a trainer is a piece of cake?

Simulating any kind of airframe at DCS lvl is not piece of cake.

 

I will not compare a DCS level aircraft to Combat Helo, because I don't really know what the simulation fidelity will be. Considering their videos so far, I'm not really convinced it will be on par with DCS.

 

Yup...I can accept it and that's all. I didn't make this topic to flame here every day. As I said, I see it from my perspective and I wanted people to say their own perspective. Nothing forced, just discussion.

 

Anyway DCS is great, developers are great as well and everyone will just pick his "dream" aircraft or helicopter to fly. :-) Can't wait what the future will bring.

[Python]

Personally, I don't see the problem with people "whining" about what aircraft is or is not being developed: it provides feedback to the developers on what we, the customers, want

 

It's certainly more helpful than the alternative, "everything's awesome!" approach; the attitude that all development projects, ANY project, is a brilliant idea, and that we'll "buy anything made for DCS" is just kind of dumb...

 

 

I'm not sure if that first bit was aimed at me, but I hope I didn't whine about anything, I just disagreed and gave an alternative opinion. A lot of the developers are gamers and flight sim fans themselves, they are aware of what people want and don't want. But that is my point, there are a lot of assumptions here about exactly what that is. Whilst I can appreciate not everybody feels the same way, some of us, me included are really looking forward to advanced simulations of more basic aircraft. DCS: World for me isn't just about the combat, I love just sitting in these things and learning the systems and how to fly them properly. Trainers are great for this and will no doubt help me and others learn to fly and fight better in the more advanced stuff that will no doubt be heading our way soon. I can't wait for the F-18, but I'm looking forward to things like the Hawk just as much. I don't think anybody has been saying everything is great, that just isn't fair on people like me who are genuinely interested in the aircraft that are being developed. If a developer chooses to make an aircraft I don't have any interest in, I won't criticize them, I'll just wish them the best of luck and buy from a different developer. There are all sorts of factors we just don't know about behind the scenes, licensing etc that also effects the choice of which aircraft to model. The open nature of DCS: World means it is almost impossible for the developers to please everybody, your time to be excited will no doubt be just around the corner as the trainers are finished up and the Typhoons and Hornets start appearing. Just give them a little time to make mistakes and learn of the slightly easier stuff first so that those awesome machines can be the best simulations they possibly can be.

 

 

 

You are totally off the point. Nobody is assuming, that rest of people here will feel the same. Shall I spell it in capital letters or what? This is not about forcing anyone to think the same. It is a discussion.

And suddenly saying, that training is part of the combat. Yes it is. But in real life. We are flying a damn game, You know. You don't have to have a training jet to not trash some multi-billion piece of hardware.

 

I'm not going to give you the same kind of time as I did OutOnTheOp above, he was polite but you're coming across as an aggressive hypocrite imo. You say this is a discussion, well I gave you my opinion which just happens to differ to yours. No you don't need the training aircraft to jump right into a game and blow stuff up, but some of us would like the added experience. And more than that, just the ability to fly the aircraft we see in our skies and dream about having the chance to fly one day. I think they will all come together to make DCS world better. You don't agree and that is fine. I'll leave you to your discussion.... all the best.

[Rabbit_]

I'm not going to give you the same kind of time as I did OutOnTheOp above, he was polite but you're coming across as an aggressive hypocrite imo. You say this is a discussion, well I gave you my opinion which just happens to differ to yours. No you don't need the training aircraft to jump right into a game and blow stuff up, but some of us would like the added experience. And more than that, just the ability to fly the aircraft we see in our skies and dream about having the chance to fly one day. I think they will all come together to make DCS world better. You don't agree and that is fine. I'll leave you to your discussion.... all the best.

 

I didn't like You put it like I assume that everyone will feel the same like me. That was the reason, but ok. Thank You for Your opinion.

[sorcer3r]

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.

 

I agree. It is obvious that there is a lack of modern equipped planes / helicopters in DCS.

But I would not blame any 3rd party devs for it. Especially if they are new to DCS.

 

On the other hand it is somehow disappointing when they continue with WW2 or other museum era modules after their first modules are almost finished.

This could undermine the argument that their first modules are there to learn DCS and to get ready to make more modern/complex aircraft.

 

Maybe it is just too hard to make modern stuff in DCS. Just see that Belsimtek could only add a radar altimeter and a flare dispenser. (Missile warning system, RWR and GPS would need years of developement?)

 

Anyway we can say what we want but I'm afraid it will take a long time until we see something modern again.

[Scrim]

No...I called that on people who write it down here just to defend their opinion. And You are still missing the main reason of this forum. It's difficult to explain to someone, who doesn't want to listen.

 

Ever occurred to you that people write that because, wait for it, several devs have said just that many times over now?

[Scoggs]

Personally I don't mind if we see more trainers or even commercial aircraft. The level of fidelity possible and performance vs other platforms is what brought me to DCS. I would love to see more variety in DCS.

 

Also with all the trainers coming, a pilot training campaign could be possible and that makes me happy in certain places ;)

[Rabbit_]

Ever occurred to you that people write that because, wait for it, several devs have said just that many times over now?

 

It looked strange to me, that noone except Pman, has posted me link to convince me, it is not only about pure speculation or somehow to support what they say. It was easy, wasn´t it? Of course, I can´t see everything on the whole forum, so I admit, I missed this info and so we can close this.:smilewink:

[Scrim]

Got it, only what is written in this thread matters. Nothing else that's been written anywhere else should be taken into consideration.

[OutOnTheOP]

You seem to think that developing a trainer is an easy option, I can tell you that by the time the Hawk is done that the development costs could never be considered by anyone as cheap. Its easier than doing something like a full on front line jet but its certainly not cheap :p

 

Where did I ever say I thought it was easy or cheap overall? I'm aware that programming such a realistic module is a large endeavor; I said it's a simple® option compared to modern combat jets. Do you disagree that the other options are comparatively MORE complex and expensive?

 

As for the overdose, Again I ask you to bear in mind that all the 3rd parties (us included) have to learn as we go, Trainers are easier no doubt this is why devs are choosing them. Also perhaps some people like the AvioDev guys have close ties to those aircraft and just want to make them, and why not indeed :D

 

And you may note that I said that I quite understand that; but suggested that aircraft of similar complexity, but of greater appeal to consumers, were available.

 

I'm glad the Skyraider got a mention as a few months back when I was researching what aircraft to do for DCS I did look into the Skyraider and I made a few enquiries to people who operate them and I didnt even get a reply from them. We can only work with people who want to work with us. If the owners/operators are not interested and we cant get access then this makes it alot harder.

 

Ok, that's a pretty good reason. No one had mentioned that before. So you agree, all things being equal, it would have been an excellent choice.

[OutOnTheOP]

I'm not sure if that first bit was aimed at me, but I hope I didn't whine about anything, I just disagreed and gave an alternative opinion.

 

No, it wasn't aimed at anyone particular... I just find it silly that people essentially tell folks to just shut up and drink the kool-ade, rather than accepting that people speaking their mind about the direction developers are taking is ultimately healthy for both consumers and developers... even though the complaints can often become tiring.

 

I happen to think that the Hawk (and for that matter, the other trainers) will be excellent modules, individually. I'm looking forward to flying the Hawk myself. However, I do think there is something to be said about the overabundance of trainers, where a variety of aircraft of different roles would have been preferable.

 

For instance, I would prefer to have a Hawk, an AN-2 Colt, an A-1 Skyraider, and a Jaguar, rather than have 4 trainers. Are any of those more complex to create than the trainers? I don't think so. And it would cater to a wider range of players: the people that wanted trainers and subsonic light strike get the Hawk, those that want a light supersonic deep strike and point defense light fighter aircraft get the Jaguar, those that want a transport/ civil aircraft the Colt, and CAS/ Sandy get the Skyraider (which can also be plausibly used for a dive bomber or torpedo aircraft).

 

Are there extenuating circumstances that might preclude those particular aircraft from being made into modules? I don't know; apparently the current Skyraider owners don't feel like playing ball, and there are no Vietnam-era pilots around willing to serve as subject matter experts. But all else being equal, not really more complex than the trainers currently in development. Just my personal opinion.

Edited June 14, 2014 by OutOnTheOP

[Python]

For instance, I would prefer to have a Hawk, an AN-2 Colt, an A-1 Skyraider, and a Jaguar, rather than have 4 trainers. Are any of those more complex to create than the trainers? I don't think so.

 

 

Ironically the Jaguar was designed to be a trainer, it was far too complex an aircraft however and it became what it was. Look I'm with you, I'd love to see a Jaguar in DCS: World, I'd love a Tornado and Harrier just as much. But nobody has said we wont get them? This is just the start of what is to come and we need to demonstrate a bit of patience. The developers have given the reasons for starting with a trainer like the Hawk, that is almost ready and no doubt they learned a lot from its development which will go into future products to make them even better. The Eurofighter Typhoon is coming after the Hawk, we can't really complain about that now can we.

 

As for the others, well other people would have complained just as much about the Colt no doubt. And if the owners of the Skyraiders don't want to be involved in the industry it sidelines that aircraft in favor of others that give the developers more access. We will see such aircraft in good time anyway, the P-47 for example which is already in development.

[OutOnTheOP]

Ironically the Jaguar was designed to be a trainer, it was far too complex an aircraft however and it became what it was. Look I'm with you, I'd love to see a Jaguar in DCS: World, I'd love a Tornado and Harrier just as much. But nobody has said we wont get them? This is just the start of what is to come and we need to demonstrate a bit of patience. The developers have given the reasons for starting with a trainer like the Hawk, that is almost ready and no doubt they learned a lot from its development which will go into future products to make them even better. The Eurofighter Typhoon is coming after the Hawk, we can't really complain about that now can we.

 

As for the others, well other people would have complained just as much about the Colt no doubt. And if the owners of the Skyraiders don't want to be involved in the industry it sidelines that aircraft in favor of others that give the developers more access. We will see such aircraft in good time anyway, the P-47 for example which is already in development.

 

Yeah... but the Jaguar ceased being a "trainer" VERY early in it's development life. My point is that I think the developers kind of shot themselves in the foot by all competing over the same niche market rather than diversifying. You're right, lots of folk would have complained about an AN-2. I wouldn't buy it, either; it doesn't interest me. HOWEVER, I think it's realistic to assume that you would get better market share by seizing seperate niche markets than flooding one.

 

Basically, if we say the population of simmers is 10, that 3 will ONLY buy modern combat jets, 2 will buy those or piston-engine fighters, 2 are interested in trainers, 1 in transports, 1 in CAS, and 1 refuses to buy anything unless it's period-correct for existing modules, then by the current developer plans, they're all competing for the dollars of 2 people. Each of those two probably buy one of the trainers, and overall sales hurt.

 

By diversifying, they're competing for 7-8 people. The guy that wants transports buys the Colt, and that dev makes a sale. The guy that wants a period-correct fighter buys the Skyraider and is happy, the two that wants a trainer buys the Hawk, etc... greater overall sales, less competition between devs, everyone wins *shrug*

[Pman]

And you may note that I said that I quite understand that; but suggested that aircraft of similar complexity, but of greater appeal to consumers, were available.

 

That all depends on plans and interest level within the dev teams. Some teams (inc us) undertake projects that have interest to the people working on them.

 

Ok, that's a pretty good reason. No one had mentioned that before. So you agree, all things being equal, it would have been an excellent choice.

 

No I didnt say that, I said that I looked into it, Had the operators even agreed it would not have meant that we would have made it, only that I would have looked into it further. I can confirm that the Skyraider is not in any of our plans at this time.

 

 

Pman

[Pman]

No, it wasn't aimed at anyone particular... I just find it silly that people essentially tell folks to just shut up and drink the kool-ade, rather than accepting that people speaking their mind about the direction developers are taking is ultimately healthy for both consumers and developers... even though the complaints can often become tiring.

 

I happen to think that the Hawk (and for that matter, the other trainers) will be excellent modules, individually. I'm looking forward to flying the Hawk myself. However, I do think there is something to be said about the overabundance of trainers, where a variety of aircraft of different roles would have been preferable.

 

For instance, I would prefer to have a Hawk, an AN-2 Colt, an A-1 Skyraider, and a Jaguar, rather than have 4 trainers. Are any of those more complex to create than the trainers? I don't think so. And it would cater to a wider range of players: the people that wanted trainers and subsonic light strike get the Hawk, those that want a light supersonic deep strike and point defense light fighter aircraft get the Jaguar, those that want a transport/ civil aircraft the Colt, and CAS/ Sandy get the Skyraider (which can also be plausibly used for a dive bomber or torpedo aircraft).

 

Are there extenuating circumstances that might preclude those particular aircraft from being made into modules? I don't know; apparently the current Skyraider owners don't feel like playing ball, and there are no Vietnam-era pilots around willing to serve as subject matter experts. But all else being equal, not really more complex than the trainers currently in development. Just my personal opinion.

 

I very much believe in having open debate with the community and try to answer as many questions as I can and this thread has been quite interesting.

 

Some aircraft are simply excluded due to the lack of access to an airframe. Take the Jaguar for example we do not have direct access to even a ground running one. As such it makes it alot harder to work on. I will always pick aircraft that we have access to or detailed knowledge of, over ones that will take months of research to get up and running.

 

We also have to take into consideration IP rights from the aircraft manufacturer, if they veto it by refusing us a licence then we cant do the module.

 

Deciding which projects to proceed with and in what order is a painstaking task, it took me many weeks to make the final decision on the 4 warbirds we have announced now!

 

Pman

[Pizzicato]

Thanks for all of the ongoing insights, communication and engagement with the community, Pman. It's hugely appreciated. :thumbup: