Dev's please stop developing trainer jets

[Pman]

Really interesting discussion, I’ve read it front to back, when you take out a lot of the common misconceptions.

 

Few thoughts my side of things.

 

Firstly I'd like to ask you guys to remember that myself and all of the guys in the team that have been brought in to work on the Warbirds and classic Jets have come from this community. We are/were customers of ED and pilots of DCS / Lock on etc so we know where you are coming from. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that developers, not just us, are non-playing members of the community. I fly the Mustang and Spitfire regularly as part of the Virtual Horsemen, as well as the F-86 and Bf109 as well.

 

Developing for DCS is a very long and complicated process, The guys working on our P-40F are not the same team as was working on Hawk, in fact some of the guys who are working on P-40 are the guys (inc myself) who have been providing bug fixes and the development plan for ASM2.0

 

Everyone thinks that developing for something as complicated as DCS is easy, even I with 10+ years of development and programming experience, thought it was going to be easier than it has been. Every developer that I have spoken to, even members within ED, have said that sometimes things just work out more complicated and difficult than expected. That's one of the things that makes it interesting!

 

Developing trainers, in my opinion, is not always the best way to go, there are simpler aircraft to develop when you remove the multi seat capability, then again you add complications as well, such as with a prop aircraft the back end stuff for things like prop eff and wash etc are all extra things you have to work with that just take time to get right. For example this week pretty much all we have been working on with the P-40 is the ground handling on the take-off roll, getting the behaviour more lifelike and “kick you in the face” as one of the testers described it haha. It is not an excuse but a fact of life that when you work on something like DCS and have XX man hours to work on a project, its takes time.

 

The WW2 team, primarily the guys focused with me on P-40F at the moment have all learnt a lot about developing for DCS and some of the more complicated systems and processes required not only for converting real life systems and behaviours into code base but also to expand and enhance functions. Experience and patience are basically the only things that get you through this. We have also investigated in great detail about doing a dual control WW2 trainer further down the road.

 

The point is that no, trainers are not always the best aircraft to start with as they again add complications, in theory something like a C152 or C172 without multi seat would be the simplest but then even I would find that less than adrenaline inducing. There is a lot that can be learnt from even the most simple of aircraft and I can entirely understand any developer that starts with a simpler aircraft, I would not start with an F22 or the like! You are just asking for trouble, not to mention the motivation hits when after 2-3-4+ years you have little to show for all those evenings you are slogging away at it. Having said that, a trainer is a good way to start for most, the EFM tends to be a little easier, a little more sedate as they are designed from the ground up to have easier handling characteristics for RL pilots to learn on.

 

I have never shied away from talking about DCS development (within NDA restrictions) and anyone who has met me at any of the shows I have attended will hopefully remember that I am happy to talk about pretty much anything aviation related, VEAO product or not!

 

The other thing to remember is passion for the product you are working on, when you have frustrations during development etc you need to be able to keep chin up and solder on, having a passion for the aircraft you are working on helps with this so so much. People have to enjoy the work!

 

I am posting this in an effort to further the discussion in this thread, I ask that you take this post in this way and don’t make me regret spending my lunch time typing it hah!

 

Pman

Edited February 10, 2017 by Pman
added text

[Haukka81]

Traineres are ok for me if they are not done like hawk. Its really amateur project .. far from dcs quality. And forever beta/alpha/wip

 

So please make some trainers but make em well.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kelevra9987]

I love my L-39 and even the -C packs a punch in good hands. In the -ZA I can disturb my moving mud and even kill a F-5 here and there.

It's quite far from "useless" you just have to use it right.

 

-K

[Coxy_99]

Traineres are ok for me if they are not done like hawk. Its really amateur project .. far from dcs quality. And forever beta/alpha/wip

 

So please make some trainers but make em well.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

And as time after time they are redoing the whole hawk module, Its dev bashing bring your module to the table thats better and let us judge it ;)

 

we need more choppers !!!

 

:)

 

A Chinook and a C-130 would fit perfect into DCSW right now.

Edited February 10, 2017 by Coxy_99

[Boris]

A Chinook and a C-130 would fit perfect into DCSW right now.

 

You know what else would fit perfect into DCSW right now? An F/A-18C :megalol:

[mkiii]

Trainers!? Why haven't we got a DH Chipmunk yet? And as someone else mentioned earlier, a DH Tiger Moth?

[Haukka81]

Dev's please stop developing trainer jets

 

And as time after time they are redoing the whole hawk module, Its dev bashing bring your module to the table thats better and let us judge it ;)

 

 

 

A Chinook and a C-130 would fit perfect into DCSW right now.

 

 

 

Nope, its not bashing . It just thruth, critic will get things go forward not rosetinted glasses ;)

 

They take money from their module so im sure they can stand some critic from customers.

 

Other beta or alpha modules are way better so veao redoing module is least what they can do.

 

Would you buy car and when you notice its have many faults, they just tell you make your own car :D

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited February 10, 2017 by Haukka81

[NineLine]

Nope, its not bashing . It just thruth, critic will get things go forward not rosetinted glasses ;)

 

They take money from their module so im sure they can stand some critic from customers.

 

Other beta or alpha modules are way better so veao redoing module is least what they can do.

 

Would you buy car and when you notice its have many faults, they just tell you make your own car :D

 

VEAO would probably be the first to admit they wished the Hawk development had gone smoother, but it didnt and they are working hard to rectify that, so beating that dead horse, especially in a thread that is not about the development of Hawk, is not all that welcome.

 

Topic is: should developers avoid Trainers?

[Coxy_99]

Nope, its not bashing . It just thruth, critic will get things go forward not rosetinted glasses ;)

 

They take money from their module so im sure they can stand some critic from customers.

 

Other beta or alpha modules are way better so veao redoing module is least what they can do.

 

Would you buy car and when you notice its have many faults, they just tell you make your own car :D

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Its bashing end of discussion, Like i say put your money where your mouth is and bring me a module thats better ;)

 

On the chipmonk trainer dont veao have one on the road map?

[Pman]

Its bashing end of discussion, Like i say put your money where your mouth is and bring me a module thats better ;)

 

On the chipmonk trainer dont veao have one on the road map?

 

They use them for training the Battle of Britain Memorial flight crew, No immediate plans, it hasn't even been discussed beyond "We should do that" for the pack yet

 

Pman

[Coxy_99]

Ah ok should really check the list, Nice info tho never knew that.

[Kev2go]

The trainers are actually a nice middle ground. With the FC3 jets, you press a few buttons and you're ready to go but this is kind of boring to me. With the trainers, you have to go through a realistic but relatively simple start-up process so you still get that feeling of immersion but you're in the air more quickly than say an M2000C (8 minute alignment! EGAD!)

 

P.S. I fly the C-101 all the time and looking forward to the EFM and weapons.

 

alternatively the Korean era jets are also pretty simple to start up and get itno the air, Particularly the F86, and while old, the sabre still has higher performance than than any of the current trainers, whilst still being combat capable, It could still fill COIN, in a post korean scenario.

 

as for the m2000 you dont need wait 8 minutes for INS alignment, if you just really want to fly around for fun. you can still use ILS or TACAN frequencies.

Edited February 10, 2017 by Kev2go

[Bogey Jammer]

I usually don't like trainers but…

Where's my Alpha Jet ?

[MikeMikeJuliet]

My two cents on the subject is this: Let's imagine the Typhoon from VEAO just came out, and it was in decent condition. Would that ever happen if they never made the Hawk and all the mistakes with it?

 

Some teams just feel way more comfortable starting off from aircraft that are easier to reproduce in the sim so they may accumulate experience. Thonk about ED. They never started with trainers, but they did start with very simple systems modelling way back. Should they just have started on the DCS-level from the getgo? I don't think so.

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

[zaelu]

My two cents on the subject is this: Let's imagine the Typhoon from VEAO just came out, and it was in decent condition. Would that ever happen if they never made the Hawk and all the mistakes with it?

 

You are tempting fate I think :) .

[MikeMikeJuliet]

You are tempting fate I think :) .

 

Which is why I never said that necessarily happens. A hypothetical example for sure... And I don't mean to point fingers here. I fly the Hawk in DCS myself and await it's completion eagerly.

[Angelthunder]

DCS World is supposed to be an open world sandbox sim for all types of aircraft and other military vehicles.I wouldn't mind if we get more trainers.I still want to see the T-2 Buckeye,T-38 Talon & T/AT-6 Texan someday.And if we ever get bombers or big multi-crew aircraft or helos someday,i would like to see a T-1 Jayhawk or a T-44 Pegasus to compliment them.

[Haukka81]

Dev's please stop developing trainer jets

 

Dont get me wrong , i still fly hawk and its one my favorite planes in real life (maybe because our air force uses them) but same time im frustrated that its still so far from quality that dcs usually delivers.

 

Hawk 3D model is awesome , maybe thats one reason why its feels so bad that inside its so unfinished.

 

My English is bit limited , so my critic may sound Harsh sometimes.

 

Small jets are my personal intrest, maybe some day we get A-4 skyhawk :)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OttoPus]

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

 

Really, the discussion should have stopped here :)

[Coxy_99]

Dont get me wrong , i still fly hawk and its one my favorite planes in real life (maybe because our air force uses them) but same time im frustrated that its still so far from quality that dcs usually delivers.

 

Hawk 3D model is awesome , maybe thats one reason why its feels so bad that inside its so unfinished.

 

My English is bit limited , so my critic may sound Harsh sometimes.

 

Small jets are my personal intrest, maybe some day we get A-4 skyhawk :)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Its beta wait for a release the next time you think about purchasing a module? :)

[Haukka81]

Its beta wait for a release the next time you think about purchasing a module? :)

 

 

 

I know its beta but all other beta products have been much better shape ;)

 

But you are right , i will not buy veao products anymore if they are in beta.

 

But im happy that they will redone hawk , end of this story for now.

 

 

AND yes more trainers are welcome always.

[msalama]

STOPPPP. Please

 

Dude.

 

L-39ZA = COIN = SHEER FUN (if you can swing it)

 

Any questions?

[The_Pharoah]

I'm coming in late but whatever.

 

I agree with the OP. DCS = Digital COMBAT Simulations. Most folks get enjoying from employing their a/c online (and offline) in combat situations. Exactly how is a T-2 Buckeye (besides being one of the ugliest a/c i've ever seen) going to fare against Migs and SAM sites?

 

'but its a sandbox'...yeah so is FSX. If you want the enjoyment of just flying for the pure enjoyment of flight (which is excellent), try out FSX. There are so many awesome combat aircraft that could and should be developed.

 

I've argued for a long time the point of developing aircraft towards specific scenarios ie.

- WW2

- Vietnam War

- Korean War

- Gulf War

- Modern day conflict

 

War, war, war...its assumed that by the time you get into the cockpit of an F-15C or A-10C, you're already passed the training stage and the need to fly trainers. We need proper balance, esp in online warfare. For so long we had online missions which included P-51Ds, Hueys and training a/c. Eh?

[SilentGun]

if i had a dollar for every thread that opened with this title, id'e own the U.S. military...

[Buzzles]

[snip] DCS = Digital COMBAT Simulations [snip]

ED disagree, straight from the product page they clearly think it's a sandbox:

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/world/

DCS is a true "sandbox" simulation that is also designed to cover multiple time periods of interest such as WWII, Vietnam, Gulf War and others.