Dev's please stop developing trainer jets

[Tucker Fleming]

 

I'd buy one of these AT-6/Texan/Harvard jobs...I see them over the house fairly often and secretly wish I was in one.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Dont get me started on the Storch :)

 

 

Being able to spot for artillery in a Storch or Grasshopper would be pretty fantastic.

 

 

I'd buy one of these AT-6/Texan/Harvard jobs...I see them over the house fairly often and secretly wish I was in one.

 

 

I will own a Texan, some day. Though, for the purposes of DCS? LT-6G Mosquito. That'd fit along side the MiG-15 and F-86.

[Feuerfalke]

I'd love to see more trainers.

 

But I would like them to have the ability to be joined by another player who does not have to own the module. That would be a great way to teach newcomers and show them the beauty of DCS.

 

I've got many people to play RoF by this simple feature.

 

Yes, sure you can learn flying in the Su25 or P51, too. But lets be honest: These two are probably not the kind of planes newcomers would like to master. And putting them in a plane and flying alongside in your own is not really the best way for teaching complex airplanes like those 2 examples.

[MickeEinSweden]

I want a Saab 105 Sk60 ;)

[some1]

Ahem, so you now have access to all the sales figures, or you just extrapolate your personal preferences?

I remember what people said when the MiG-21 was announced and it was about how "not iconic", "unknown", "useless" it was, and that "nobody wants/would buy" an old russian fighter...

I guess the MiG-21 sold quite ok, for such expectations, from a few guys that simply didn't know what they were talking about.

 

Huh? MiG-21 is one of the most mass produced and well known aircraft in the world, I don't remember anyone saying otherwise, not sure where you got that idea... "Useless", for some people maybe, as it was a plane without opponent (then) and combat environment (which, sadly, still is). But this is a general problem with most DCS releases that are not from the '80-90s era of the first Lock On games.

 

 

What is your guess for an "iconic" jet in the UK? Sepecat Jaguar? A Lightning? A Harrier Gr. 7? Eurofighter Typhoon or an F-35? A Tornado? Or an F-16, F-18 or F-4?

 

In Germany? An F-104? A Tornado? F-4 Phantom? Or the late MiG-29 G or a MiG-21 if it comes to people from east Germany?

 

What about other countries? What do they see as an "iconic" plane?

 

I can tell you that any of them is more iconic than C-101, L-39 or an AT-27 :P Of course for a Spaniard a C-101 may be iconic, just like for a Pole it will be TS-11, but that's a small percentage of potential DCS customers.

Besides, between "iconic" and "totally forgotten" there is a lot of space that is filled with some more or less popular aircraft. I'm just saying, that the aircraft popularity in real life has an effect on how popular it will be as a product. Developers have to take this into account and, as Sithspawn said, "live with whatever they decide".

 

 

To learn the ropes for dual cockpit and Multiplayer input synchronisation it is a pretty logical step to start with a two-seater trainer aircraft. Same goes for developing supersonic external flight models.

 

You don't need dual cockpit and Multiplayer input synchronization, there are dozens of single seat airplanes missing in DCS, that can keep the developer busy for a few years. Not everyone has to do multiseat aircraft modules.

An underpowered trainer is the least suitable thing to learn anything about developing supersonic EFM. Although that supersonic Hawk bug gave me chuckles.

 

 

You can be sure third parties think a lot about their business decisions before starting a venture. Like any other business does... : smartass:

 

Oh yes, those several pages long roadmaps, preselling an addon and then postponing it a year or two... all part of the Big Plan. :smartass:

[some1]

I don't get this, there is exactly ONE dedicated trainer in DCS: TF-51D. And it's free. The rest of the planes which are used for training are perfectly capable of combat, so what's the issue? Because there's no afterburner? Or radar? Or smart weaponry? Or fancy countermeasures?

 

"Perfectly capable of combat" is a strong word. L39ZA has a gun that is not suitable for A2A combat because of AoA and speed limits, two basic A2A rockets and limited choice of A2G weaponry. Hawk has only two A2G and two A2A pylons with limited payload capacity, not to mention it's weapons and gunsight are either bugged or placeholders. C-101CC actually has a nice set of weaponry, but we are still waiting for it since 2015 and can only hope for this year's release.

All of them are severly underpowered, even compared to Korean war jets. (L39 - 16kN thrust; MiG-15 - 26kN thrust).

Edited February 10, 2017 by some1

[shab249]

I remember what people said when the MiG-21 was announced and it was about how "not iconic", "unknown", "useless" it was, and that "nobody wants/would buy" an old russian fighter...

I guess the MiG-21 sold quite ok, for such expectations, from a few guys that simply didn't know what they were talking about.

 

 

The mig-21 is the most iconic jet of the soviet union whar are you talking about the mig-21 was in service in more than 50 countries and fought in vietnam iraq-iran yom kipor (syria and egypt against israel) and much more

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[NeilWillis]

I understand why people feel so strongly one way or another regarding training aircraft. The simple fact is that every individual among us has their own idea about what does and doesn't make a worthwhile subject for a module.

 

One can argue quite cogently for either side of the debate, but regardless of the pros and cons, I don't suppose anyone will persuade anyone else.

 

To one person, huge amounts of excess power are a good thing, to another, the lack of power is what makes a training aircraft far more exacting and more of a challenge to fly successfully. The fact that you can't simply light the re-heat, and go ballistic in an L-39 is exactly why it should be used to practice ACM - anyone can get out of a difficult situation by calling on a huge reserve of power - but to fly any aircraft which is at the edge of it's envelope takes real skill and judgement. That is precisely why they're much more effective platforms to learn those skills.

 

The same argument is always given regarding which version of a particular airframe everyone likes to fly. To my mind, a huge error arose when the fastest/bestest/capablest version is modelled instead of a more limited, earlier mark. Again, there are cogent arguments for both approaches, but subtlety and skill trumps brute force.

 

What we really need is the best of both worlds. Training aircraft are indispensible for their role, and balls to the wall fighters are indispensible for fighting wars. Why do we have to limit anything at all in sandbox sims?

 

Or are the fighter jocks just scared they'll get shot down by an L-39, and therefore fear an encounter? If that isn't the case, then why do we have to choose one over another? Let's have both, and set aside this pointless debate.

[shagrat]

 

The mig-21 is the most iconic jet of the soviet union whar are you talking about the mig-21 was in service in more than 50 countries and fought in vietnam iraq-iran yom kipor (syria and egypt against israel) and much more

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I was pointing out, that the L-39C is as much an "iconic" plane, as the MiG-21.

 

And I know that the MiG-21 is still in use in lots of countries, one of the most build jetfighters and definitely what we would call iconic.

 

Yet, when LN announced it, there were rants from people asking in a similar way you did, to "stop developing trainers", to "stop developing 'useless' old russian jets" and so on!

 

It shows that, just because a bunch of people voice an oppinion louder on the forums than others, has nothing to do with "majority", "a lot", etc.

 

The majority most likely has no forum account and just buys the modules developers make for them.

[shagrat]

"Perfectly capable of combat" is a strong word. L39ZA has a gun that is not suitable for A2A combat because of AoA and speed limits, two basic A2A rockets and limited choice of A2G weaponry. Hawk has only two A2G and two A2A pylons with limited payload capacity, not to mention it's weapons and gunsight are either bugged or placeholders. C-101CC actually has a nice set of weaponry, but we are still waiting for it since 2015 and can only hope for this year's release.

All of them are severly underpowered, even compared to Korean war jets. (L39 - 16kN thrust; MiG-15 - 26kN thrust).

Hmm, tell that to the countries who flew them in conflicts as a ground attack plane or as CAS.

 

I am sure especially the people that had the chance to witness the "just two pylons" spewing rockets at them, got hit with the limited angle gun in a strafe, or were close to one of the bombs, would not agree with you, if they are still alive. ;)

 

Indeed many Rebels/insurgents around the world would strongly disagree.

 

The Hawk saw combat in the Indonesian, Malaysian and Zimbabwean forces.

The L-39c in Afghanistan (interestingly it flew for the Taliban against the northern alliance), in Libya against Chad and some other conflicts I can't remember at the moment...

[Coxy_99]

Heres my 2 cent, Im glad ED is what it is THE BEST sim out there by far, I dont care if ED even started making civillian aircraft i would buy it i dont care if its a trainer i would buy it hell if they even made an x-wing id buy that to, Im glad ED let 3rd parties to the table for a varity of modules. Why not just do what you got to do and buy them all :) its for your own health.

[zaelu]

I was pointing out, that the L-39C is as much an "iconic" plane, as the MiG-21.

 

 

Man... you should quit what are you drinking because you are still sliding away downhill :lol:

 

 

OT

 

I guess by now we can conclude that the best trainer made in DCS World is L-39 and is made by ED and they didn't had anything to learn anyway... beside building the dual sitter code which could have been be done for any dual sitter not only a trainer given their experience.

 

We could at least in a "bar discussion" agree that the other teams that made trainers failed lamentable in their quest of "learning".

 

One sold a similar plane with L-39 (two versions) but at (still) lower quality than L-39 but bigger price and since 2 years they had little progress and lot of struggle without a EFM to really teach something.

The second sold a trainer in indisputable low quality and without thinking from the start at dual seat in multiplayer which is basically the main purpose of doing a trainer aircraft.

The third team was wise enough to drop their development and moved to a iconic fighter which progressed very well in one year, brought them money and fame. They are example to be followed not the failed experiments of low selling expensive to develop and buy trainers.

There was a fourth team that started a trainer and I don't want to mention anything more about them beside their trainer would have been probably the most shameful because it could have been directly compared with the jewel(s) EDs L-39 is(are).

 

All these said, I would really love a talon a T-38. Who knows.

 

 

Lastly I want to reiterate my advice for any team interested in "money and fame"

 

-Don't build trainers.

-Build something that will bring new players not milk the existing ones if you manage to fool them with some patriotic bs (eg I wouldn't build a IAR 99 Soim even if it would trash any trainer done by other 3rd parties).

 

Think outside the box.

 

Build a DCS Sky Diving. Code a FM for a skydiver and make good controls for him (and the rest of ejectable pilots so everyone could enjoy). No complicated avionics needed just pure EFM but simple one.

Build around ME so this can be easy to use and bring people into the fun of it. Make people enjoy the Sand Box DCS is without big costs and with big sales.

 

Then build a darn An-2

:joystick:

Edited February 10, 2017 by zaelu

[shagrat]

Man... you should quit what are you drinking because you are still sliding away downhill

 

 

OT

 

I guess by now we can conclude that the best trainer made in DCS World is L-39 and is made by ED and they didn't had anything to learn anyway... beside building the dual sitter code which could have been be done for any dual sitter not only a trainer given their experience.

 

We could at least in a "bar discussion" agree that the other teams that made trainers failed lamentable in their quest of "learning".

 

One sold a similar plane with L-39 (two versions) but at (still) lower quality than L-39 but bigger price and since 2 years they had little progress and lot of struggle without a EFM to really teach something.

The second sold a trainer in indisputable low quality and without thinking from the start at dual seat in multiplayer which is basically the main purpose of doing a trainer aircraft.

The third team was wise enough to drop their development and moved to a iconic fighter which progressed very well in one year, brought them money and fame. They are example to be followed not the failed experiments of low selling expensive to develop and buy trainers.

There was a fourth team that started a trainer and I don't want to mention anything more about them beside their trainer would have been probably the most shameful because it could have been directly compared with the jewel(s) EDs L-39 is(are).

 

All these said, I would really love a talon a T-38. Who knows.

 

 

Lastly I want to reiterate my advice for any team interested in "money and fame"

 

-Don't build trainers.

-Build something that will bring new players not milk the existing ones if you manage to fool them with some patriotic bs (eg I wouldn't build a IAR 99 Soim even if it would trash any trainer done by other 3rd parties).

 

Think outside the box.

 

Build a DCS Sky Diving. Code a FM for a skydiver and make good controls for him (and the rest of ejectable pilots so everyone could enjoy). No complicated avionics needed just pure EFM but simple one.

Build around ME so this can be easy to use and bring people into the fun of it. Make people enjoy the Sand Box DCS is withouth big cots and with big sales.

 

Then build a darn An-2

:joystick:

Sorry, you interpret a lot of stuff into the post I never said.

 

There is a huge number of people from the aerobatics community that would consider the L-39C as one of the more iconic eastern trainer aircraft.

 

And in the eastern block it is a quite popular plane, as well.

 

We even had two developers making an L-39C...

 

So it may have some fans out there?

 

As for ED they did their L-39C as a testbed for dual seat, with easy accessible data and details, it seems.

 

What others said, already. Devs should develop what they want and have the sources and data for, not what a dozen people on the forums ask for.

 

It isn't a good idea to make business decisions based on forum threads. ;)

[some1]

Indeed many Rebels/insurgents around the world would strongly disagree.

 

Rebels/insurgents in real life have different damage model than we have in DCS, they can actually got hurt by bombs and rockets falling near them, not only by the ones that hit them directly in the head.

[shagrat]

Rebels/insurgents in real life have different damage model than we have in DCS, they can actually got hurt by bombs and rockets falling near them, not only by the ones that hit them directly in the head.

??? we play the same Sim here?

 

Blast damage has been increased about a year ago?

 

And yes, a bullet actually needs to hit a body to do damage if it's not explosive.

 

What is poorly modeled (visually) is the infantry taking cover and not standing upright for target practice.

 

Just lying prone can divert a bomb blast and protect from shrapnel, when there is a small mud-slide covering you.

 

If we would have working airburst, that would be different.

 

I guess a set of unarmored Technicals would be nice.

[sobek]

If we would have working airburst, that would be different.

 

We would also need a shrapnel model for that.

[panzer_18]

We dont need more ground attacker, like the Viggen or F-15e!

 

We need more fighter for multiplayer!

[OnlyforDCS]

Funny to see this thread going strong. :)

 

What we really need though are bombers and gunship platforms or transport planes of all eras.

 

Now that we have multicrew working properly I hope we see the C-101, didn't ED do a military contract for one of those? I assume it would be pretty easy to port it into DCS if they managed to procure a commercial licence.

 

Still Im of the opinion that trainers still serve a purpose in DCS. At least the L39 does. I wouldn't touch a SFM module with a 5 foot pole :)

Edited February 10, 2017 by OnlyforDCS
spelling

[Frostie]

We desperately need a DCS:AirTraktor AT-802 to go with all the western style farming simulator terrain mods available.

[CHDT]

I've nothing against trainers.

I would buy immediately a TF-104G or a F-100F.

[BIGNEWY]

we need more choppers !!!

 

:)

[Havremonster]

we need more choppers !!!

 

:)

 

100% agree :) And spesial if they can fix the long missing transport/embarking problem :music_whistling::D

[shagrat]

We would also need a shrapnel model for that.

Yes, definitely, currently the increased blast damage is a workaround, not perfect.

Yet if we model the bombs and explosives in general to perfection, we should enhance realism on the infantry side, as well.

Lying prone, taking cover behind berms, walls, whatever is available...

 

It is pretty astonishing how many bombs get dropped on insurgents in Afghanistan and they still fight back... ;)

[shagrat]

We dont need more ground attacker, like the Viggen or F-15e!

 

We need more fighter for multiplayer!

Nope, YOU want more fighters, I would love to have more attack Helicopters and multirole jets like the F/A-18, F-16, Typhoon, etc.

[whiteraven24]

b..but... my favourite jet is a trainer :(