Jump to content

Multicrew warbird for training


PETER SHIFTY
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, PETER SHIFTY said:

I don't think that "kill yourself and wreck it as much as you want" is the way to learn something

This is a game. It’s not real life. If I want to practice landing on the carrier I can just do it in an F-18 instead of building up that skill with a variety of training aircraft. If I crash or kill my virtual self I can just restart, there are no real world consequences. The reasons that training aircraft and procedures exist in the real world are not relevant to a game. And it costs money to develop these modules. If a player wants to learn a P-47 they can just buy the module and train on that. 
Look at the real world training required to use a firearm or drive a car. Is that sort of instruction necessary for a first person shooter or driving game? No… It’s not real, it’s a game.

Velocity Micro PC | Asus Z97-A | i7-4790K 4.7GHz | Corsair Liquid CPU Cooler | 32GB DDR3-1600MHz Memory | EVGA RTX 2080 Ti XC | 240gb Intel 520 Series MLC SSD | 850 W Corsair PSU | Windows 10 Home | LG 32UD99-W UHD Monitor | Bose Companion 5 Speakers | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2021 at 2:44 PM, Tippis said:

It's far too trivial to operate and fly (and especially land) to really teach you anything about the warbird experience.

 

The only things that would translate is that you hear a constant droning from the propeller, and that you need to prime your fuel system. In all other aspects, you might as well use the Albatros or Aviojet — at least those have some quirks in their flight dynamics that you need to manage, and you also actually have to manage your engine.


We might well consider it easy to fly, however, a person new to DCS might well not, and isn’t that the point of a trainer?

In addition, still allows a pilot to learn the basics of take off, landing, engine management and navigation by visuals.

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said:


We might well consider it easy to fly, however, a person new to DCS might well not, and isn’t that the point of a trainer?

In addition, still allows a pilot to learn the basics of take off, landing, engine management and navigation by visuals.

Oh sure. As the very first plane to ever fly, it's perfect. Even the engine management is largely optional (although that might be more due to a gap in the simulation).

 

That's a bit different than what seems to be asked for here: a warbird trainer — i.e. something that has similar characteristics, although perhaps not quite as… ehm… temperamental as a Spit or P-whatever. It's a long way to go from perhaps the most trivial thing with wings available in DCS to the pogo-flip-overheat-loveliness of the real warbirds. The TF-51 is already a whole lot easier to fly than just about anything else in that general selection, except maybe the regular P-51, so it would be a good candidate.

  • Like 3

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a free (unarmed) 2 seater warbird is a great idea. Not only for training but as a marketing tool. Somewhat like the Free TF-51 but you could take someone for a ride in the front, maybe get them interested in DCS, and maybe get them interested in multicrew. 

 

Maybe make an armed version of the plane as a full WWII DCS module, then just remove the guns for the (free) trainer version. 


Edited by Lurker
  • Like 2

Specs: Win10, i9-9900KF@5Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM 3200XMP, 1 TB M2 NVMe SSD, KFA2 RTX3090, VR G2 Headset, Warthog Throttle+Saitek Pedals+MSFFB2  Joystick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

This is a game. It’s not real life. If I want to practice landing on the carrier I can just do it in an F-18 instead of building up that skill with a variety of training aircraft. If I crash or kill my virtual self I can just restart, there are no real world consequences. The reasons that training aircraft and procedures exist in the real world are not relevant to a game. And it costs money to develop these modules. If a player wants to learn a P-47 they can just buy the module and train on that. 
Look at the real world training required to use a firearm or drive a car. Is that sort of instruction necessary for a first person shooter or driving game? No… It’s not real, it’s a game.

I wrote that many of us want to at least get closer to reality, and many of us actually fly. That you and someone else see it differently ok. If anyone finds it fun to smash the ground 10 times a night then please make your choice. We have fun in a different way. 🙂

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, PETER SHIFTY said:

I wrote that many of us want to at least get closer to reality, and many of us actually fly. That you and someone else see it differently ok. If anyone finds it fun to smash the ground 10 times a night then please make your choice. We have fun in a different way. 🙂

 

Cant you like stay at the hospital for 2 months in real life after you crash at landing a plane in game? for the reality sake? you can always do that, but you wont cause its not practical, you should tho, cause that would be the happiest scenario after a real life plane crash.

 

Sharpe is right here, some things are just not required in a simulator. How many real world fighter jet aircraft simulators, that air forces around the world use, have 2 seat modules?

That's right, none (at least I haven't seen any with 2 seats), why? its not needed.


Edited by Furiz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Furiz said:

 

Cant you like stay at the hospital for 2 months in real life after you crash at landing a plane in game? for the reality sake? you can always do that, but you wont cause its not practical, you should tho, cause that would be the happiest scenario after a real life plane crash.

 

Sharpe is right here, some things are just not required in a simulator. How many real world fighter jet aircraft simulators, that air forces around the world use, have 2 seat modules?

That's right, none (at least I haven't seen any with 2 seats), why? its not needed.

 

you're very pleasant. You're having a bad day I understand. I write it as my wishlist. So keep your comment to yourself. Thanks. 🙂 Or  just write that you don't think so. Title is "Multicrew warbird for training" and we speak about WW2 planes, not jet.


Edited by PETER SHIFTY
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Furiz said:

How many real world fighter jet aircraft simulators, that air forces around the world use, have 2 seat modules?

At least one for anything built on a wide-body or tubeliner platform, most likely. Oh, and stuff like this.

Not that it is in any way relevant to the topic at hand.


Edited by Tippis
  • Like 1

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PETER SHIFTY said:

you're very pleasant. You're having a bad day I understand. I write it as my wishlist.

 

I just slapped a hint of reality on you, and sometimes reality is not pleasant, I didn't say anything wrong.

 

3 minutes ago, PETER SHIFTY said:

So keep your comment to yourself. Thanks. 🙂 Or  just write that you don't think so.

 

If I don't think so, next thing you'll ask why is that... its polite to explain why you don't think so. At least in my world.

 

Second, "keep my comment to myself" what is that? Anyone can comment, if you didn't want comments I suggest posting your wishes on some social media with comments turned off.

 

In there end you said you wanted to get as close as you can to reality, so there you go 😜

2 minutes ago, Tippis said:

At least one for anything built on a wide-body or tubeliner platform, most likely. Not that it is in any way relevant to the topic at hand.

 

Can show us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are jetliners........................ ofc they will have 2 seats, you can put the 3rd guy with those screens in a real jet liner

 

edti: even 1 seat on a strike eagle simulator


Edited by Furiz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Furiz said:

Those are jetliners

The F-15E is not a jetliner. And they're still jet aircraft.

If that doesn't strike your fancy, you can try this. Or maybe this.

 

Or just accept that by not wanting to spend the few seconds worth of googling it took to find these examples, you accidentally let slip a categorical statement that wasn't… well… all that accurate. “Categorical statements are categorically false” is a saying for a reason, you know. 😉 


Edited by Tippis
  • Like 3

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Furiz said:

 

no coment. Wish theme that i wrote is WW2 training plane in multicrew. Why? but we flying WW2 modules (not all, whislist who prefer other modern technique

is different again), and why not during war was many types in 2seat version, P47,Spitfire, P51, and first planes for usaaf, RAF in training (for bombers too) was T6, texan, Harvards, Stearmans, Tigermoths, Miles Magister, etc. so why not, 

and those other questions just blah blah blah. sry. So we can start over and calm the thread. Please to you.


Edited by PETER SHIFTY
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

+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.


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas, Caucasus

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tippis said:

The F-15E is not a jetliner. And they're still jet aircraft.

If that doesn't strike your fancy, you can try this. Or maybe this.

 

 

There is no mention of 2 seat simulator in any of those articles.

 

Not gonna argue with you anymore, you just go on and on indefinitely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Furiz said:

There is no mention of 2 seat simulator in any of those articles.

You honestly believe that they don't simulate two-seat aircraft using two-seat simulators? In spite of being shown that they have two-seat simulators for two-seat aircraft? 🤣

Well, you do you — after all, what else can you do.

 

7 minutes ago, Furiz said:

Not gonna argue with you anymore, you just go on and on indefinitely.

Not indefinitely. Only until someone offers a good and relevant counter-argument or manages to actually prove their point.

But if you'd like to get back on the topic of the thread, that would be swell regardless.

  • Like 3

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PETER SHIFTY said:

many of us actually fly. That you and someone else see it differently ok. If anyone finds it fun to smash the ground 10 times a night then please make your choice

Many real pilots train in simulators where they can risk things they wouldn’t risk in a real aircraft. Same here. 

Velocity Micro PC | Asus Z97-A | i7-4790K 4.7GHz | Corsair Liquid CPU Cooler | 32GB DDR3-1600MHz Memory | EVGA RTX 2080 Ti XC | 240gb Intel 520 Series MLC SSD | 850 W Corsair PSU | Windows 10 Home | LG 32UD99-W UHD Monitor | Bose Companion 5 Speakers | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s nothing wrong with wanting to be realistic but it comes at a cost to the game. Somebody, either ED or a third party actually has to make the module and profit from it. My guess is that it wouldn’t be profitable. Only 10% of the players in this game play online and an even smaller subset might be looking to imitate real world type instruction. 
 

The other problem in a PC game is that the chief benefit of dual controls, that the trainee can feel what the instructor is doing, is lost on a PC. So it actually isn’t much help

Velocity Micro PC | Asus Z97-A | i7-4790K 4.7GHz | Corsair Liquid CPU Cooler | 32GB DDR3-1600MHz Memory | EVGA RTX 2080 Ti XC | 240gb Intel 520 Series MLC SSD | 850 W Corsair PSU | Windows 10 Home | LG 32UD99-W UHD Monitor | Bose Companion 5 Speakers | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Furiz said:

Cant you like stay at the hospital for 2 months in real life after you crash at landing a plane in game? for the reality sake? you can always do that, but you wont cause its not practical, you should tho, cause that would be the happiest scenario after a real life plane crash.

 

What even is this?

 

46 minutes ago, Furiz said:

Sharpe is right here, some things are just not required in a simulator.

  • C-101EB
  • L-39C
  • Yak-52
  • Mirage F1BE

All dedicated trainer modules (there was a 5th, the BAe Hawk T.1A, but let's not talk about that).

 

You're arguing against something that already exists, it just doesn't exist for WW2...

 

46 minutes ago, Furiz said:

How many real world fighter jet aircraft simulators, that air forces around the world use, have 2 seat modules?

That's right, none (at least I haven't seen any with 2 seats), why? its not needed.

 

But said real world fighter jet pilot, will fly in 2 seat trainers... The extent of their practical training isn't limited to just simulators, and the OP isn't trying to simulate real world pilots using a simulator.

 

We on the other hand most likely don't have the luxury of having real 2 seat trainers, in fact, not being able to fly real world aircraft in a free environment is probably why this game exists in the first place, and the reason why many of us play it.

  • Like 3

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas, Caucasus

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Many real pilots train in simulators where they can risk things they wouldn’t risk in a real aircraft. Same here. 

So in other words, it makes all the sense in the world to add this kind of simulation because that would actually make the game more realistic.

 

I know that consistency is not your strong suit but you're offering a really confusing stance here, where you will constantly shift and contradict your argumentation to ensure that things other people enjoy, and especially things that would be helpful to new players and in any kind of teaching scenario, never sees the light of day.

 

I've asked it before, and I must ask it again: what do you have against realism and new players?

 

5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The other problem in a PC game is that the chief benefit of dual controls, that the trainee can feel what the instructor is doing, is lost on a PC

It really isn't since DCS already provides multiple means to convey that. You should know this already.

  • Like 3

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

There’s nothing wrong with wanting to be realistic but it comes at a cost to the game.

 

But there isn't really a cost to the game, these modules already exist, just not for WWII.

 

The game loses nothing by including one of these modules. The only cost here is time and development resources, something that applies for literally everything.

 

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Somebody, either ED or a third party actually has to make the module and profit from it. My guess is that it wouldn’t be profitable.

 

Well Aviodev/Aerges started off with their trainer, and are making another one down the line...

 

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Only 10% of the players in this game play online and an even smaller subset might be looking to imitate real world type instruction. 

 

Even so, these aircraft have their merit as is.

 

Since 2.7 the aircraft I've spent the 2nd most time with is the Yak-52, in SP.

 

And flying the trainers made me fly better, it's much easier to start off slow and easy and move up.

 

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

The other problem in a PC game is that the chief benefit of dual controls, that the trainee can feel what the instructor is doing, is lost on a PC. So it actually isn’t much help

 

Not feeling what the instructor is doing isn't the be all and end all, there's a benefit to be had with having real time feedback while being the one doing the flying, with someone there to take over if need be - the other chief benefit.

 

You can argue that there aren't any consequences for failure, but actually learning what you're supposed to do, while receiving real world feedback can be very beneficial, rather than just screwing it up until I improve.


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 4

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas, Caucasus

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

There’s nothing wrong with wanting to be realistic but it comes at a cost to the game. Somebody, either ED or a third party actually has to make the module and profit from it. My guess is that it wouldn’t be profitable. Only 10% of the players in this game play online and an even smaller subset might be looking to imitate real world type instruction. 
 

The other problem in a PC game is that the chief benefit of dual controls, that the trainee can feel what the instructor is doing, is lost on a PC. So it actually isn’t much help

I think it will help, it's in the same module, the same height and it sees the same parameters on the indicators, in real time, it sees that it's flying low, it has little speed, it's heating up the engine,  clearly the cost recovery, I understand that, but it's not unrealistic, and a lot of third parties are making modules, and so on. But as I write, it's a wishlist for people who fly WW2, not for people who fly modern  jets, that in turn is unfunny for me, a lot of people can fly other games. But me DCS fits the most. And I think it's also the furthest right for the level of realness, so for me it's just a wish. That's all. Thanks for comment.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

But there isn't really a cost to the game, these modules already exist, just not for WWII.

Clearly, a dual control option for the TP-51 would be the easiest module to make. But ED would still need to devote hours to making it. My guess is everything in DCS is a lot more work than people imagine that it is. 

Velocity Micro PC | Asus Z97-A | i7-4790K 4.7GHz | Corsair Liquid CPU Cooler | 32GB DDR3-1600MHz Memory | EVGA RTX 2080 Ti XC | 240gb Intel 520 Series MLC SSD | 850 W Corsair PSU | Windows 10 Home | LG 32UD99-W UHD Monitor | Bose Companion 5 Speakers | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Clearly, a dual control option for the TP-51 would be the easiest module to make. But ED would still need to devote hours to making it.

…and? By that logic, nothing can ever be made for DCS. So that's a completely vapid observation.

 

The point is, no matter how much you aren't interested and wish it were otherwise, these modules exist. They sell enough to keep being made. There is no cost except opportunity cost and that holds true for everything so, again, that's not a sensible argument against doing it for WWII as well.

  • Like 2

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...