+Dave 2,322 Posted January 20, 2015 Rant On Ok on my soap box now. How many flipping trainers do we need? It seems like the only 3rd party devs releasing things other than Belsimtek are releasing training jets. We have the Hawk (good choice) but now we have the CASA C-101. We do not need more trainers, we need FIGHTERS! F-16, F/A-18, F-4. I can name about 30 others that would really spark the community. We see some big name jets getting done but all I see is hear say and conjecture. Now I understand the entire process, i just do not understand the thinking behind it....for example: Dev: "Lets make the C-101." Dev Team: "Oh a CF-101, good Idea. The Voodoo was a beast!" Dev: "No, no you idiots, a CASA C-101." Dev Team: "What is a CASA C-101? Dev: "It's a low-wing single engine jet-powered advanced trainer and light attack aircraft in service with the Spanish Air Force, but that's not important right now. The people will love it, trust me." Dev Team: "Are you sure?" Dev: "Yes I am sure. Here drink this Kool-Aid." Now tongue in cheek implied. This maybe the first plane I pass on a plane. Please get me a multirole western fighter...... Rant Off 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MAKO69 186 Posted January 20, 2015 HAHA, you make me laugh Dave. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ordway 23 Posted January 21, 2015 Hahaha, You won't want mine -SIAI Marchetti SF.260 (on the way sometime). It can only go 236 knots! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted January 21, 2015 I am glad people are interested in modding for DCS. I also know these trainers are test beds to get the Dev's feet wet on how to get planes into DCS. I am just some impatient douche who would give his right nut for an F-16 for example. Ordway Your plane has caught my eye....I have always loved that plane. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+EricJ 4,245 Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) I've been talking to SkateZilla about me possibly getting a team for a Super Hornet since Coretex is dragging serious ass on it. I got the requirements and honestly a Falcon has crossed the mind but then again the F4 guys would have aneurysms once that was ever announced. "WHAT!?!?!?!? IT'S NOT BETTER THAN OURS!" I mean even at the Flaming Cliffs level it still would be enough to keep people happy. The Su-25T while nowhere near capable, does have enough functionality tor it to be flown and operate a targeting pod even with that lower level of capability compared to a 6DOF jet. Edited January 21, 2015 by EricJ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+streakeagle 871 Posted January 21, 2015 Despite all the trainers already planned and/or being released, I would like it if all the trainers used in a particular military's pilot training program were replicated to allow simulating a full course of instruction. A complete training package for USAF and/or USN pilots from the 1960's or 1970's would be cool. If I could only have one trainer, it would be the T-38A, especially if a minor variant were available: the USAF Thunderbirds. I bought the Hawk to support VEAO's long term plans and see what kind of quality they are capable of producing. I am not sure about the C-101, but if the flight model is good and they are going to ultimately make some airplanes I really want, I may buy it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tirak 4 Posted January 21, 2015 I know the logic of the trainer's was so that the 3rd Party Developers could get used to working on DCS so when they did the more complicated stuff it'd be easier, but frankly I look at the MiG-21 module by Leatherneck and have to wonder why they didn't just do the cheap multiroles like Leatherneck. I mean the Hawk is nice, but I can't imagine the Hawk is much easier than something like the F-5. There's a huge range of Cold War era jets that don't have super complicated systems that should, in my humble non codeing/modling/anything capable opinion, have been pretty much as easy as all these bloody trainers. The Crusader and Super Saber seem to me like they'd have been perfect "let's learn how to DCS" planes. I know liscensing agreements have scuttled some projects but really, there are a lot of planes to choose from from a lot of different manufacturers in that era, surely one of them would have reasonable liscensing agreements. The F-16 however i don't think is going to get done for a long long time. No 3rd Party Dev or even ED wants to take that on knowing they'll be compared at every turn to BMS. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted January 21, 2015 BMS should make one for DCS. Falcon 4 is long in the tooth no matter how many new dresses you put on it. Cortex's SH is vaporware because they need advanced avionics that aren't made yet for 3rd party devs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+EricJ 4,245 Posted January 21, 2015 Fair enough I guess but still it's able to be done. I mean SkateZilla was able to program the electrical system. There's little documentation but i do have a linky if anybody's interested, but overall it won't be too hard to implement avionics, but the issue is of course classification which is of course a major issue with any modern aircraft. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+acesfakia 1,198 Posted January 21, 2015 Hahaha, You won't want mine -SIAI Marchetti SF.260 (on the way sometime). It can only go 236 knots! Sorry is anywhere ....here ....................SIAI Marchetti SF.260 ......???? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ST0RM 145 Posted January 21, 2015 What ever happened to Skate's F-100 for DCS? Yep, the C-101 will be another pass for me. The strike trainer concept intrigues me, but I'd prefer something slightly broader. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stratos 3,192 Posted January 21, 2015 I will get the C-101 as is the trainer for my countries Air Force and because it maybe can lead to a flyable DCS level Mirage F.1. That would make me really happy. But I agree with you guys that we need a serious fast multi-role being the Viper of the Hornet, the problem is that ED AFAIK does not have the A-G radar avionics that those planes need. And I will love to see a F-16 in DCS even at FC level, but I think ain't gonna happen. Regarding maps, no one is daring to create a Afghanistan map? Not very big cities, not a lot of roads or railways to do, and If done properly you can represent the Soviet invasion of the 80's and the Enduring Freedom op. Well, will keep dreaming. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,884 Posted January 21, 2015 The required A-G avionics code will come with the FA-18C - it is mentioned in the new video from Froogle/Matt Wagner Building the DCS terrains appears to be a colossal job - and any pay ones would likely take years. It's good that effort to put infrastructure in for multiple years is being considered - dodging SA-18s in a P-51 is not my thing I'm sure I have seen a post from Skate stating he doesn't have the time to finish the F-100 - would need to find it. The guy that did the BMS flight model has offered to help do a DCS flight model - but didn't sound like that went well. This has been discussed on the BMS forums - the underpinning implementation is so vastly different its not a simple case of porting anything and they are committed to improving F4. The pay campaigns is a good idea - I would buy all for the A-10C - but yeah probably might not buy any trainers myself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+EricJ 4,245 Posted January 21, 2015 Yeah even the PM conversation (SkateZilla) I've had with him he's been real busy himself. Now that my personal life will settle down hopefully I can refocus back on doing stuff again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Centurion-1 1,228 Posted January 22, 2015 The trainers are a bit of a downer and I agree with you guys that there are a truckload of more interesting birds than the C-101 or Hawk. I am really torn between the two, I dont want to sink close to 100USD on two trainers, on the one hand the Hawk is flown by the FAF, on the other hand the C101 attack version looks pretty fucking neat. And yeah, the Mirage F.1 plans are intriguing as hell, but so is the Eurofigher. I am guessing BTW that they made C101 because they had access to it and pilots and engineers, docs and so on. I still would have prefered something like the F-5B (which would lead to the F-5A). Aviodevs FB page shows a rough F-5B model, so that's something. Also, can someone tell BST to go back to the whirlybirds? I'll take the Cobra and Hind now, thank you. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+EricJ 4,245 Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) Yeah having been on the inside the stuff has to be declassified or not classified. Anything with even a Confidential level (or foreign equivalent) is not touched. At the least they may have access but realistically its not a military simulator, so no classified material, which is the reason why some projects can't be done to their true capability. Even for my JTAC manual I had to make sure the Laser Cone was publicly described in order for me to put it. Suffice to say if you can find the material without going to WikiLeaks or equivalent, you're safe. Edited January 23, 2015 by EricJ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+streakeagle 871 Posted January 25, 2015 I ended up getting the C-101. After having flown so many similar aircraft in DCS with full ramp startups, I was able to get this baby out of the hangar and off the ground without even reading a quick start guide. I did use the English tool tips to verify my guesses at switch functionality, but the process was fairly straight forward: close the canopy, lock the canopy, turn on oxygen supply, turn on battery and generator, turn on fuel pumps, set throttle to idle, flip start switch. There were fault lights that helped me figure figure out anything that was missing. Simply closing the canopy gave me the most trouble. I couldn't figure out where the hotspot was for clicking on it with a mouse. The aircraft is overall very well done, but the SFM makes taxiing, taking off, and landing very boring. I hope the promised AFM is comparable to other DCS aircraft in detail and realism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dsawan 624 Posted January 25, 2015 I am of the opinion if ya got the money and like it, buy it. if not, don't whether its trainer or not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+streakeagle 871 Posted January 26, 2015 But if they are interested in decent sales, it would be much better to offer an airplane with greater appeal. As others have stated, many other aircraft would have been no more difficult to model than these trainers but would have gotten a much better response in sales. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+EricJ 4,245 Posted January 26, 2015 Pretty much, the C-101 looks cool and somebody will enjoy it but I'm not going to get it, that's for sure. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted January 26, 2015 IIRC the dev team was Spanish, so it was like a US team making a T-38. I also am not interested in trainers, never flown them in SF2 either, but I'm willing to look at whatever combat airplane they make. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+streakeagle 871 Posted January 28, 2015 I am far more interested in full-blown, well-known air superiority fighters, hence my general lack of interest in FSX and X-Plane. However, I love all airplanes and well-modeled virtual aircraft have a very strong appeal to me whether they are military or civil. Yet, I still don't own any A2A FSX releases despite their nearly insane detail and realism. I would really enjoy the T-38A modeled as realistically as possible, of course, I would like the F-5A and F-5E to go with it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+EricJ 4,245 Posted January 28, 2015 I only keep FSX because I got it for like five bucks for the Steam version, and haven't touched it yet. However once the Super Bug gets made available for the Steam version I'll probably get that again. But agreed though, it seems they want "uknown" (C-101) aircraft more than the more common jets, etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+SiThSpAwN 2 Posted January 28, 2015 I can see both sides of the fence when it comes to the rash of trainers we are seeing, I mean in many ways it makes sense to start with a trainer for your first module. But I can also see the argument stating why not do an older fighter, I think when its all said and done, trainers probably have the most information available to these teams, they probably have an abundance of pilots willing to chat about the, etc (although we saw the legal struggles VEAO seemed to have with their Hawk, but then when lawyers stick their noses in, all bets are off :) ). I am into the Hawk because of the RCAF connection, but like most, trainers are not what I am really interested in, I want the big guns... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+SkateZilla 49 Posted January 28, 2015 What ever happened to Skate's F-100 for DCS? Yep, the C-101 will be another pass for me. The strike trainer concept intrigues me, but I'd prefer something slightly broader. The required A-G avionics code will come with the FA-18C - it is mentioned in the new video from Froogle/Matt Wagner Building the DCS terrains appears to be a colossal job - and any pay ones would likely take years. It's good that effort to put infrastructure in for multiple years is being considered - dodging SA-18s in a P-51 is not my thing I'm sure I have seen a post from Skate stating he doesn't have the time to finish the F-100 - would need to find it. The guy that did the BMS flight model has offered to help do a DCS flight model - but didn't sound like that went well. This has been discussed on the BMS forums - the underpinning implementation is so vastly different its not a simple case of porting anything and they are committed to improving F4. The pay campaigns is a good idea - I would buy all for the A-10C - but yeah probably might not buy any trainers myself. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2219282&postcount=152 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
