Dev's please stop developing trainer jets

[shab249]

.

Edited November 22, 2023 by shab249

[StandingCow]

It's a good way for devs to learn. Don't like them? Don't buy them.

[FalconPlot16]

you are right..

[BIGNEWY]

And dont move/delete the thread, it's about DCS in general

 

Moved to wish list ;)

 

As mentioned, The trainers were a good way for devs to learn, sure they are not for everyone.

 

A lot of users want their favourite jet and they want it now, but these things take time, some great releases coming in the future and many more after that

 

enjoy the ride :)

[FalconPlot16]

Moved to wish list ;)

 

As mentioned, The trainers were a good way for devs to learn, sure they are not for everyone.

 

A lot of users want their favourite jet and they want it now, but these things take time, some great releases coming in the future and many more after that

 

enjoy the ride :)

 

i think everyone learn how to fly with every planes in this sim

[joey45]

Learn to make planes/helicopters for DCS.

 

Unless you are veterans in the business.

 

Anyway trainers are good for COIN OPS.

[FalconPlot16]

Learn to make planes/helicopters for DCS.

 

Unless you are veterans in the business.

 

Anyway trainers are good for COIN OPS.

 

counter insurgency ops ?

[some1]

You're late to the party, as far as I know there are no more trainers in development for DCS anyway. Though you probably can count the RAZBAM Tucano as a trainer, depending how you look at it, and which version they are going to make eventually.

 

I think the trainers we currently have in DCS were not only a lesson for 3rd party devs, but also for customers, who now have a better understanding which developers can be trusted, and which better be avoided.

[Aginor]

I agree that combat aircraft are more needed than trainers, especially in a virtual environment in which it doesnt hurt if you crash the expensive jets during training.

 

That being said: I am glad we have trainer aircraft, and even more glad that all of them also have their use in combat (As soon as the C-101CC arrives. Looking at you, Aviodev!) We have both western and eastern trainers and I won't be angry if we get one or two more, like some prop trainer).

 

And of yourse you have to see it this way: The devs have to start somewhere. A trainer or otherwise simple aircraft is a good place to start because of less complexity, and you get access to those planes much more easily, which is VERY important when developing a DCS plane, especially if it is your first.

 

So if I have the choice between a trainer with limited combat capabilities, or no aircraft at all, I choose the former. Especially if it is the initial project from a dev team who wants to build up skills and money for the planes I really want.

 

...and last but not least: If you don't like trainers don't buy them. Vote with your wallet, as the saying goes.

[shab249]

It's a good way for devs to learn. Don't like them? Don't buy them.

Dev's can learn throw the development of a big jet and than fixing their bags

(Code is code the plane dosent matter)

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[shab249]

I agree that combat aircraft are more needed than trainers, especially in a virtual environment in which it doesnt hurt if you crash the expensive jets during training.

 

That being said: I am glad we have trainer aircraft, and even more glad that all of them also have their use in combat (As soon as the C-101CC arrives. Looking at you, Aviodev!) We have both western and eastern trainers and I won't be angry if we get one or two more, like some prop trainer).

 

And of yourse you have to see it this way: The devs have to start somewhere. A trainer or otherwise simple aircraft is a good place to start because of less complexity, and you get access to those planes much more easily, which is VERY important when developing a DCS plane, especially if it is your first.

 

So if I have the choice between a trainer with limited combat capabilities, or no aircraft at all, I choose the former. Especially if it is the initial project from a dev team who wants to build up skills and money for the planes I really want.

 

...and last but not least: If you don't like trainers don't buy them. Vote with your wallet, as the saying goes.

I think that if you want a basic old prop plane try the TF-51 it's basic a trainer and free

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[myHelljumper]

Don't you think that some peoples might like the trainers ? You are not the only one flying DCS. Same for the gazelle, it is used by ~10 countries so it is not unknown to a lot of simers...

[EntropySG]

Im always super excited when a new module comes out, I buy them all to support the devs. I just don't get the purpose of the trainer modules tbh. Im not saying they should not be developed, obviously there is a market for it or else they wouldn't make them, but I don't get what their role is really from a sim/gaming perspective :)

[firmek]

...

(Code is code the plane dosent matter)...

It's such a wrong and underestimated statement that I don't even know where to begin with explaining why. Well, we might as well say that code is just a set of letters that computers can understand. In reality the experience of people which are designing it, writing it, artists, testers, people knowing how to gather and analyze the requirements as also to run the project are the key.

 

In the topic of trainers - after all, we're on a consumer market. There are people that will buy them as well there are people that wont buy some of the combat aircrafts (for me F-4 would be a low priority buy).

Already mentioned many times aspect is that trainers are considered by the module developers as a good investment into priceless experience for the future. Another point is limiting the risk - start simple with a bigger chance of delivering or jump with no or little experience on a complex module, investing a lot and accept a high risk of failure (there is no easy and one, only correct answer to hits question as it depends on organization ability to consume the risk).

On top of that, what a lot of people forget to consider is the total cost of ownership. Developing something can actually sometimes be a smaller part of the cost in the long time perspective. After the release the solution has to be maintained. Starting without experience may get you a working solution but you can be almost certain about high maintenance cost further on and increased numbers of detractors that will not only not buy your next product but will efectivelly make a negative PR arround it.

Edited February 9, 2017 by firmek

[Boris]

You'll find that all of the trainers released so far for DCS have combat capabilities. In the case of the L-39 and C-101 there are dedicated combat variants.

 

Combat campaigns for these aircraft would be a lot of fun, IF there were more content. They would be great for campaigns involving small nations and anti-insurgency.

 

I could also envision multiplayer servers with A/A involving the trainers.

 

For those who like the realism (and you wouldn't be a DCS pilot if you didn't), a trainer also gives you the capability to have a realistic training progression. This is especially good for online squadrons.

[Mars Exulte]

Speak for yourself, scrub. I bought both the Hawk and the L-39, and thinking about the 101. I like the trainers. They're a good introduction to advanced system usage, both forthe devs, as others mentioned, and for the players.

 

USAF STOP BUYING T-38S WHEN YOU ALREADY HAVE F-22S AND F-35S Y U FLY ANYTHING ELSE WHEN YOU HAVE THESE NOBODY WANTS T-38 @@

Edited February 9, 2017 by zhukov032186

[firmek]

Zhukov, looking more from the perspective of the content, like missions (training campaigns even maybe?) not only the airplane itself, from those modules that you own, which one you would recommend as first? I'm kind of eager to get one of those finally but the selling point would be possibility to increase the knowladge as such about aviation, procedures, different systems and being able to practice them.

[some1]

Of the trainers only L-39 is finished, but there's not much content for it (no campaign).

C-101 is about two years late with the armed variant and AFM.

Hawk seems to be in the never ending development struggle.

[OnlyforDCS]

The L39C was one of my favorite DCS modules, to just fly in. You know practice basic flight maneuvers, take-offs, landings, etc. When I just want to chill out and fly for a bit, without any stress, etc. I used to fire it up. I say used to since it's been a while since I've flown it.

 

It's also one of the few jets that has real force-feedback support, which adds to the pleasures of flying it.

 

I still haven't flown the ZA variant (which reminds me, need to install this module) but back when I had Nevada installed, the L39C was the plane I used to fly over Las Vegas for the majority of my flight time there.

 

In essence it's a great "newbie" plane, that holds some real value for "advanced" pilots who enjoy just "flying" every now and again. :)

 

With all of that said, I would probably NOT buy another trainer again. One in the stable is enough for me. But I think everyone should at least have one right? ;)

Edited February 9, 2017 by OnlyforDCS
grammar

[shab249]

The L39C was one of my favorite DCS modules, to just fly in. You know practice basic flight maneuvers, take-offs, landings, etc. When I just want to chill out and fly for a bit, without any stress, etc. I used to fire it up. I say used to since it's been a while since I've flown it.

 

It's also one of the few jets that has real force-feedback support, which adds to the pleasures of flying it.

 

I still haven't flown the ZA variant (which reminds me, need to install this module) but back when I had Nevada installed, the L39C was the plane I used to fly over Las Vegas for the majority of my flight time there.

 

In essence it's a great "newbie" plane, that holds some real value for "advanced" pilots who enjoy just "flying" every now and again. :)

 

With all of that said, I would probably NOT buy another trainer again. One in the stable is enough for me. But I think everyone should at least have one right? ;)

Well if you want to "relax" i think the FC3 jets are great for that

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[WinterH]

Oh another one of "those posts", been a while, can't say they were missed though.

 

FYI : there aren't any know full on trainer jet in development currently, apart from a trainer/attacker turboprop, Tucano from Razbam. So you don't have that much to complain about.

 

There are trainers with light attack capability that I would consider getting and enjoying. There are other that think like that too. Its not like DCS is a sea of trainers, nor like it is going to become one anytime soon.

 

Even though I originally decided not to buy L-39 (because of the situation with Patriots team), I eventually got sick everyone posting "booooo... traineeerrrs" and bought it anyway, and I'll say it: it is one of the best modules in DCS.

 

Maybe consider stopping to assume that everyone is you? ;)

[Mars Exulte]

Zhukov, looking more from the perspective of the content, like missions (training campaigns even maybe?) not only the airplane itself, from those modules that you own, which one you would recommend as first? I'm kind of eager to get one of those finally but the selling point would be possibility to increase the knowladge as such about aviation, procedures, different systems and being able to practice them.

 

Yeah, there aren't any campaigns. I like both aircraft, but the Hawk still has issues, where the L-39 is mostly finished already and has fully functional two-seater gameplay. For practical and QA reasons, the L-39 is the clear winner, unless you really like the Hawk and don't mind its quirks.

[shab249]

Oh another one of "those posts", been a while, can't say they were missed though.

 

FYI : there aren't any know full on trainer jet in development currently, apart from a trainer/attacker turboprop, Tucano from Razbam. So you don't have that much to complain about.

 

There are trainers with light attack capability that I would consider getting and enjoying. There are other that think like that too. Its not like DCS is a sea of trainers, nor like it is going to become one anytime soon.

 

Even though I originally decided not to buy L-39 (because of the situation with Patriots team), I eventually got sick everyone posting "booooo... traineeerrrs" and bought it anyway, and I'll say it: it is one of the best modules in DCS.

 

Maybe consider stopping to assume that everyone is you? ;)

I say this for the future. Dev's need to know all of the community voices. I think a lot will agree with me that trainers are less important than the real fighters/strikers. after all, they were made to teach new pilots how to fly the real jet fighters/strikers

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[OnlyforDCS]

Yeah, there aren't any campaigns. I like both aircraft, but the Hawk still has issues, where the L-39 is mostly finished already and has fully functional two-seater gameplay. For practical and QA reasons, the L-39 is the clear winner, unless you really like the Hawk and don't mind its quirks.

 

Yep, can't go wrong with the L39, great fun to fly, primarily due to the flight model being so great. If you have a force feedback joystick, then you have one more reason to go for it.

[OnlyforDCS]

Well if you want to "relax" i think the FC3 jets are great for that

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

No. You missed my point entirely. :doh: