Should A2A create an Official Military Trainer line of aircraft with a different focus than our traditional airplanes?

This is the place where we can all meet and speak about whatever is on the mind.

Should A2A create an Official Military Trainer line of aircraft with a different focus?

Yes
136
86%
No
23
14%
 
Total votes: 159

User avatar
rhenson529
Senior Airman
Posts: 168
Joined: 23 Mar 2015
Location: KPAE

Re: Should A2A create an Official Military Trainer line of aircraft with a different focus than our traditional airplane

Post rhenson529 »

As stated in the other survey, “yes”. This is a great opportunity for A2A to grow their customer base.
Can we look forward to something this weekend? :lol:

Ron
A2A Planes: Cub, 172, 182, Cherokee, Comanche, Bonanza,T6, 377, Spitfire, and P51
Hardware: i7 (5.0 ghz) 32 GB 3000Ghz; RTX 2080ti; 1TB PCIe M.2; 1TB PCIe M.2

chadryan
Senior Airman
Posts: 233
Joined: 04 Mar 2014

Re: Should A2A create an Official Military Trainer line of aircraft with a different focus than our traditional airplane

Post chadryan »

Definitely a yes now that it’s reworded



User avatar
Dominique
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 473
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Location: French riviera

Re: Should A2A create an Official Military Trainer line of aircraft with a different focus than our traditional airplane

Post Dominique »

After reading your facebook comment, my answer is yes and there is no need for another branding. I can live without the maintenance hangar, the walkaround and the history of the plane. I dont buy A2A for them but for the engine and flying simulation.
Dominique
Simming with a i7-4770 /Nvidia 1080 and Prepar3D V3
Proud owner of A2A Piper Cub, Cherokee and Comanche, Curtiss P-40, North American P-51 civ. and Texan, Boeing Stratocruiser and Cessna Skylane

User avatar
guenseli
A2A Master Mechanic
Posts: 3425
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Should A2A create an Official Military Trainer line of aircraft with a different focus than our traditional airplane

Post guenseli »

Ok, changed my vote at this topic now to "yes"!

That, if it comes as explained by Scott, would be great!

However I would miss the maintenance hangar, BUT: I think I can live without it (as long as engine hours are stored) if we think, that a military aircraft would always have a service at top level and you will see most probably no degradation.

alan CXA651
Senior Master Sergeant
Posts: 2215
Joined: 15 Mar 2016

Re: Should A2A create an Official Military Trainer line of aircraft with a different focus than our traditional airplane

Post alan CXA651 »

Hi.
The aircraft maint hangar lets me know how good or bad my flying was , by how much damage and wear is showing , also on B17 missions , it shows how badly i was shot up , and still made it back , the connie is not flown as much as my mil aircraft because it has no hangar , the aircraft is still my fav pax aircraft , but i miss the hangar , i know there is a memory limit in the sim , but i think the hangar is an important part of a2a aircraft , as it tells you a lot , the aircraft systems and flight model are the more important to get right , but i now expect both from a2a , else i dont think its A2A top standard.
I also would like to see more WW2 iconic aircraft from A2A , like the B25 / B24 / Lanc , oops sorry lewis did not mean to upset you on this one.
regards alan. 8)
Image
Image
Image
Image

Roadburner426
Technical Sergeant
Posts: 871
Joined: 29 Jul 2008
Location: Hampton, VA

Re: Should A2A create an Official Military Trainer line of aircraft with a different focus than our traditional airplane

Post Roadburner426 »

I would think the maintenance hanger would take a lot of work anyway, and probably far more than it is worth. Especially with all of the advanced avionics and stuff like that. So I would be fine if the aircraft still had the flying characteristics, and so forth that are top notch. Also I think the walk around would kind of be pointless for the military products anyway.. as any pilot walking to the aircraft has already had it looked over by the crew chief (or plane captain in the Navy's case), and the pilot isn't doing much more than doing a real basic walk around/checks of the aircraft and getting in, lol. So it would make sense to not have the walk around honestly. I like the aircraft history in the manuals, but in light of the "bucket" I am fine doing my own historical research in that department if I feel compelled. 8)
S. Jordan
AM; United States Navy
FSX/P3Dc4 Hours: 3100 and counting! All A2A birds in the hangar except the 172.

User avatar
Medtner
Master Sergeant
Posts: 1261
Joined: 30 Sep 2013
Location: Arendal, Norway
Contact:

Re: Should A2A create an Official Military Trainer line of aircraft with a different focus than our traditional airplane

Post Medtner »

I still voted no.

I think it might be a safe release, if marketed properly.

However.

It robs us baseline original A2A customers of that thing that makes your products stand out. The flight characteristics can only be so much perfected - we won’t know the thousand-part differences. However the feeling of ownership, connection, and learning of the systems involved in AccuSim can only be felt if we have the hangar and the persistent aircraft.

I can live without the walk around, as in the other warbirds, but the hangar is such an immensely important tool for me to feel and trust the persistency and deep modeling of the aircraft. If I can’t take a peak under the hood and watch the spark plugs fire, the oils flow, the filters clog - I don’t feel it.

As a new product line, I’m sure it will sell. But this is the one opportunity we A2A customers get to have the Texan II lined up with the old Texan for us to compare and contrast. If it lacks that one essential feature of the hangar it will forever be a “light” simulator, even if it’s “better” under the hood. I get the feeling of an even higher quality Aircraft Factory. Simply not interested, and A2A’s focus on AccuSim says that neither are you, when it comes down to it.

If you need to take something out of the bucket, then get rid of the detailed outside modeling. I love a good looking airplane, but I fly it from the cockpit and the hangar. The outside is just candy.

Oughhh... the thought of an AccuSim without the ability to feel ownership and connection actually gives me a lump in my throat. It means that much for me... Please consider differently, even though the public wants everything you throw out there.
Erik Haugan Aasland,

Arendal, Norway
(Homebase: Kristiansand Lufthavn, Kjevik (ENCN)

All the Accusim-planes are in my hangar, but they aren't sitting long enough for their engines to cool much before next flight!

Hook
Master Sergeant
Posts: 1278
Joined: 31 Dec 2012
Location: Bonham, Texas

Re: Should A2A create an Official Military Trainer line of aircraft with a different focus than our traditional airplane

Post Hook »

I'd rather have an A2A quality F-104 without a maintenance hangar than never have one at all.

Previously I wasn't particularly interested in the Phantom, but knowing that it is full military trainer grade, I want it.

"Should A2A create an Official Military Trainer line of aircraft with a different focus than our traditional airplanes?"

Official Military Trainer? Heck yeah!

Hook

n421nj
Chief Master Sergeant
Posts: 3536
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Location: KCDW

Re: Should A2A create an Official Military Trainer line of aircraft with a different focus than our traditional airplane

Post n421nj »

I voted no. I thought for a good while about it. I think the thing that makes A2A stand out from the other developers (in its products ), or if I had to summarize A2A planes in just a few words, is the wear/tear and failure functions. Flying with consequences. In other words the fact that you can break an A2A plane. We all have tried purposely not fixing a red or yellow item in the maintenance hanger then going for a flight to see if we could survive. Or been on a flight when something unexpectedly breaks and we white knuckle land or crash. Pure immersion magic. Every other company boasts realistic flight dynamics tested by real pilots, detailed pbr exteriors and interiors etc. etc. but only A2A planes simulate what happens when you lower flaps above vfe or never change the oil. The maintenance hanger is forever tied to this philosophy and allows 1 click repairs to get your plane back in flying shape - even while still in the air.
In my humble opinion I think elimination of the maintenance hanger would be a mistake and would divert A2A from the path that has gotten them here today. Sorry to be that guy.
Andrew

ASUS ROG Maximus Hero X, Intel i7 8770K, Nvidia GTX 1080, 32GB Corsair Vengeance 3000 RAM, Corsair H90i liquid cooler.

All Accusim Aircraft
Accu-Feel, 3d Lights Redux

speedy70
Senior Master Sergeant
Posts: 1876
Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Location: Devon,UK

Re: Should A2A create an Official Military Trainer line of aircraft with a different focus than our traditional airplane

Post speedy70 »

Why can't you release these under a new banner.you have aircraft factory and A2A,why not "restricted military trainers"

That will segregate it from A2A and avoid any clash.

It seems to me that it would be a a pity for us to miss out on this opportunity as a result of being faithfull to the A2A brand.

So if it is the brand rebrand it.

Cheers Chris
PS Like Medtner I have all your products and value the brand integrity but fail to see how ,if handled correctly,can damage the brand name.

DrumsArt
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 259
Joined: 24 Jun 2013
Location: France

Re: Should A2A create an Official Military Trainer line of aircraft with a different focus than our traditional airplane

Post DrumsArt »

Does this mean that no matter how the airframe or engine is treated, there will be no consequences? Or did I misunderstand?

If the answer is yes to the question on the consequences (no consequences), then my answer will be highly probable: no

Richard
Richard Portier
MAXIMUS VI FORMULA|Intel i7-4770K [email protected] x8|NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080ti|M16GB|Windows10 Pro 64|Fsx Accel|P3Dv4.5HF2|Rex|Saitek Pro Flight Yoke/Rudder/Quadrant/Switch Panel|ThrustMaster Hotas Warthog|ActiveSky P3Dv4+Asca|Mce|All A2A

User avatar
CAPFlyer
A2A Aviation Consultant
Posts: 2217
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Location: Wichita Falls, Texas, USA

Re: Should A2A create an Official Military Trainer line of aircraft with a different focus than our traditional airplane

Post CAPFlyer »

speedy70 wrote:
20 Jun 2019, 06:43
Why can't you release these under a new banner.you have aircraft factory and A2A,why not "restricted military trainers"

That will segregate it from A2A and avoid any clash.

It seems to me that it would be a a pity for us to miss out on this opportunity as a result of being faithfull to the A2A brand.

So if it is the brand rebrand it.

Cheers Chris
PS Like Medtner I have all your products and value the brand integrity but fail to see how ,if handled correctly,can damage the brand name.
Guys, I'm not sure where this is coming from. Both the thread title and Scott's post call these the "Official Military Trainer line" - aka new brand, aka not released as "Accusim" or "Captain of the Ship". He clearly capitalized those words on purpose.
Image

User avatar
AKar
A2A Mechanic
Posts: 4499
Joined: 26 May 2013

Re: Should A2A create an Official Military Trainer line of aircraft with a different focus than our traditional airplane

Post AKar »

This is how I understood the first pool as well, even if I could live with larger list of items left out from the simulation than what is suggested here. Obviously, I'd expect the regular product line that includes some elements of aircraft ownership game and PFIs and all that, to retain its scope. To be honest, it would actually make rather little sense to me to include these aspects into a simulation of a military aircraft in the first place.

So, of course, the answer is the same: yes, why not.

-Esa

new reply

Return to “Pilot's Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests