Multicrew warbird for training

[Baldrick33]

Like many ideas here a multicrew WW2 trainer has some merit but as mentioned everything comes with an opportunity cost of what else doesn't get done whilst it is designed, developed, tested and supported.

 

Personally I have such a wishlist of WW2 aircraft, assets and scenarios that the concept of spending time on a multicrew trainer would be a negative choice for me. Just my opinion but I really would question whether the numbers who would place it above other WW2 projects is sufficient to justify it.

 

Of course if was such a lucrative project that it could fund additional resource or be picked up by a new third party development team so as not to impact existing projects then great but I really don't think it is.

[Lurker]

16 hours ago, Baldrick33 said:

Like many ideas here a multicrew WW2 trainer has some merit but as mentioned everything comes with an opportunity cost of what else doesn't get done whilst it is designed, developed, tested and supported.

 

Personally I have such a wishlist of WW2 aircraft, assets and scenarios that the concept of spending time on a multicrew trainer would be a negative choice for me. Just my opinion but I really would question whether the numbers who would place it above other WW2 projects is sufficient to justify it.

 

Of course if was such a lucrative project that it could fund additional resource or be picked up by a new third party development team so as not to impact existing projects then great but I really don't think it is.

 

Were there any WWII twin seater fighter\bomber\torpedo aircraft, that had dual controls? From the top of my head I can't think of one. Why not produce a full DCS WWII paid module (which I assume would be rather popular) and then provide a (free) version with the weapons removed\disabled as a trainer version? It's a stretch I know but its the only reasonable way that this could be done, since I doubt that a WWII trainer would be all that profitable and make sense as a paid module. 

Edited September 16, 2021 by Lurker

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, Lurker said:

Were there any WWII twin seater fighter\bomber\torpedo aircraft, that had dual controls? 

Well, there's the obvious one…  

 

Every image I've seen of the actual TF-51 also has that, except for the DCS one, which only has a passenger/observation seat. Dual-control trainers were a thing back then in much the same way (and for the same reasons) as now.

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, Lurker said:

Why not produce a full DCS WWII paid module (which I assume would be rather popular) and then provide a (free) version with the weapons removed\disabled as a trainer version?

DCS already has this with the P-51D and the TF-51D. 

Edited September 16, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Lurker]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

DCS already has this with the P-51D and the TF-51D. 

 

 

Actually no it doesn't. Unless they've changed something you can't fly the TF-51D in multicrew. One person flies, the other observes. AFAIK there is no way you can switch controls from pilot to copilot in the TF-51D.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Lurker

[SharpeXB]

2 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

Actually no it doesn't. Unless they've changed something you can't fly the TF-51D in multicrew. One person flies, the other observes. AFAIK there is no way you can switch controls from pilot to copilot in the TF-51D.

 

But for the purpose of providing a free way to train yourself, it works for that. 

[Lurker]

6 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

But for the purpose of providing a free way to train yourself, it works for that. 

 

No it doesn't. It provides for a way to give people a ride in the backseat. Your statement would be true if it were possible to use the controls from both seats. Since it isn't, at this point I'm gonna assume you're just trolling. 

Edited September 16, 2021 by Lurker

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Your statement would be true if it were possible to use the controls from both seats

Sure but I’d rather see ED work on other content for WWII than add a feature which would likely go unused or not be very much value in selling the game. 
 

There’s a whole world of information and videos and instruction out there to learn this stuff. I don’t think it’s worthwhile for ED to spend the effort in adding more. 

[Tippis]

26 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

DCS already has this with the P-51D and the TF-51D. 

 

13 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

No it doesn't. It provides for a way to give people a ride in the backseat.

More specifically, it doesn't do that because it has no backseat — it's just a (largely inaccurate and incomplete) decoration on the 3D model. The TF-51 is meant to be a trainer aircraft, but its DCS incarnation doesn't work like that because it's missing even the most basic thing a trainer needs: a place for the training instructor to sit (and, of course, the functionality to let him sit there, hence this entire thread).

 

Sure, it's free, and sure you can use it to train with, but that's exactly as true for the Su-25T, and that obviously doesn't make the Frog a training aircraft for much the same reason. If “you can train yourself” was a valid qualifier, then the Spitfire is also a training aircraft module, and as anyone who has tried it will tell you, it is not a good learning environment.

 

13 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Your statement would be true if it were possible to use the controls from both seats. Since it isn't, at this point I'm gonna assume you're just trolling.

Welcome to sharpeville.

 

5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Sure but I’d rather see ED work on other content for WWII

Your opinion is noted and discarded as irrelevant to the topic at hand. The mods have explained this to you already.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

From the perspective of selling the game and bringing in customers, training features aren’t the big draw. Modules are. Selling modules is what makes money for ED, not features. What’s going to attract a new player to DCS is seeing a module for an aircraft that interests them like an F-14 or a P-47. Or maybe just a sale. And it doesn’t matter what players do with the game, it only matter that they buy it. ED doesn’t get paid for what players do in the game. They can have fun just making stuff go boom or engage in something more sophisticated, whatever. But it doesn’t matter for the game’s profitability or popularity. And the vast vast majority of players in this or any game will play it for a dozen or so hours and then move on. They’ll have their fun flying a P-51 around and shooting up stuff and get their money’s worth and then buy another game. Only a tiny fraction are going to play any game for hundreds of hours. It doesn’t mean that DCS shouldn’t have the depth for players who want that, indeed that’s a draw in itself. But it’s just another appealing reason to buy the module. What somebody does with it after that doesn’t matter. So adding features at the expense of developing modules isn’t necessarily a boon for the game. 

[Tippis]

25 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

From the perspective of selling the game and bringing in customers, training features aren’t the big draw. Modules are.

You realise, of course, that the training features is the very reason why DCS exists to begin with, right? That that's why modules (and yes, they are indeed modules) like the A-10 and M2k are used in actual training: because those features exist. That the big-paying, future-proofing customer base — training institutions contracting out work to use DCS as a teaching tool — come to DCS because this particular simulator has tools that allow for the creation of training scenarios.

 

I know that you are proudly ignorant and break out in rashes and hives at the mere thought of learning something or doing research, but even you should know this.

 

25 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Selling modules is what makes money for ED, not features.

This is just painfully confused.

What do you think “features” are?! What do you think it is that sells the modules?

 

You previously went on this whole useless tangent about how most players are SP only. Have you considered what this means for what players actually do in the game? When there aren't other players around to generate the dynamics of the world you're flying in, what do you think the source is for the single-player's entertainment?

 

25 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

ED doesn’t get paid for what players do in the game.

Yes they do. They're called “campaigns”, which rely on features being used by the modules. You know, that thing that your much-vaunted majority of SP-only  customers rely on to have a game to play. The modules alone are meaningless without the content. The features you are so confused by are what makes that content possible. They also get paid for features — those being created to support some fancy new module and give it any reason to exist.

 

25 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

So adding features at the expense of developing modules isn’t necessarily a boon for the game. 

Not “necessarily”, no. The correct word is “automatically” or possibly “inherently”.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Tippis

[Callsign112]

On 9/15/2021 at 10:31 AM, Northstar98 said:

+1

 

We have basic jet trainers (L-39C, C-101EB), a basic flight trainer (Yak-52) and soon to be a trainer of a more mainstream combat aircraft (Mirage F1BE), WW2 is the only one missing one.

 

I would've said TF-51D, but seeing as you can't really do anything from the backseat but spectate, a better one would be the North American T-6/AT-6 Texan, it's probably the most suitable aircraft for the role and it has a huge number of operators.

 

I understand you mean the ED version of the TF-51D, because the real aircraft had controls in the back seat. Wish they would model that even if they added the AT-6.

[Northstar98]

5 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

I understand you mean the ED version of the TF-51D, because the real aircraft had controls in the back seat. Wish they would model that even if they added the AT-6.

 

Yes, that's what I meant.

 

If the real aircraft had dual controls, then ideally that would be modelled.

 

But even so the (A)T-6 Texan would be fantastic owing to just how prolific it was.

Edited September 20, 2021 by Northstar98

[Callsign112]

46 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Yes, that's what I mean.

 

If the real aircraft had dual controls, then ideally that would be modelled.

 

But even so the (A)T-6 Texan would be fantastic owing to just how prolific it was.

Couldn't agree more.

 

The list of what is missing seems almost endless at this point. But in a way, the Mustang trainer breaks from tradition at ED in that I think it might be the only module not to be correctly modeled. The WWII scene deserves a trainer, and the Mustang trainer is just sitting there waiting patiently. Still one of the most beautiful planes to fly though.