Jump to content

Crescendo

Members
  • Posts

    298
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I was inspired to make a thing: - - - (In case you don't get the cheesy joke, I recently watched and on YouTube.) Enjoy! :pilotfly:
  2. The purpose of the Sparrow is to demonstrate your superior abilities as an Airborne Samurai. With this most civilized weapon you will joust the chivalrous skies and deliver eternal shame upon the fox-three scrubs.
  3. +1 Great guide, tjhowse. Rep inbound! I used to be like this :joystick: , but now I'm like this :thumbup:
  4. There's nothing wrong terminology/jargon. I do agree with you that speaking only in terminology is not very helpful to new players, because those new players have no prior knowledge and may not have the means or ability to easily find definitions. However, this is most definitely not an argument against using terminology. Terminology is critically important because it is a convenient means of talking about precisely defined ideas and concepts. If we all understand and agree upon the terminology, we can have a discussion. On the other hand, if we have no terminology, we must continually create and recreate our own personal definitions, and this means we forever run the risk or talking past each other, of not really knowing if we actually understand each other, and of needlessly 'reinventing the wheel' over and over. Now, if some of us don't understand the terminology, it can be explained to them, and it then becomes a very powerful mental shortcut that accelerates learning and information exchange. Terminology exists in every human endeavor for a reason. You said yourself that you try and leave out the terminology, yet not only did you use the terminology "3/9 line" (which has a precise definition), you used the terminology incorrectly (no biggie, we all make mistakes). However, when <Blaze> corrected you, you doubled down and said that "crank is also keeping them on your 3/9line, same thing", which is just wrong. So despite your efforts to simplify and use every day language, you ended up creating more confusion than there would have been if the correct, precisely defined terminology had been used. The solution here is not to abandon terminology, nor is to impugn terminology as some elitist language that acts as a needless barrier to new players. It's true, I concede that some people with a 'clubhouse' mentality may wield terminology as a weapon, but they are not the majority. In my opinion, the solution is is to keep using terminology, but also to remain vigilant in tempering that terminology with newbie-friendly explanations when the context requires it. We sometimes forget to do this, so it is always good to be reminded. In any case, pr1malr8ge, I don't mean to wade into this thread and re-open old wounds, but this does seem to be one of those perennial topics, and it was just a bit much to see someone get the terminology wrong (which, again, we all do sometimes), yet then use that as a jumping off point to argue against terminology.
  5. I won't go point by point, as that can be tedious for both parties and devolve into pedantry. Suffice to say I understand your point that in your industry the system is the system (whatever it is) and it works well enough, although it isn't perfect and there may be consequences resulting from that imperfection as you noted. Hypthetical: Should a person who passes the industry selection processes and is otherwise fully competent as judged by the industry, instead recuse himself because he considers himself to be an introvert? To be clear, you aren't saying this and didn't say this, but one interpretation of your response to me is that because the selection process is workable but imperfect (i.e. someone more towards the introvert scale may slip through), the OP probably ought not to apply because he may be one of the 'false passes' that endangers people's lives. I don't understand what you are referring to or getting at here. You said part of a selection process means passing tests as outlined by you in your previous posts. All I was saying in the part you quoted is that if someone doesn't pass a test, the failure itself should not be considered an out-of-the-ordinary shocking event, unless you're a narcissist who thinks success is 100% guaranteed. People fail things for all sorts of reasons all the time. OK, this wasn't explicitly clear in your post ("could lack the key assertiveness required for certain situations" - emphasis mine), so it is. I find it hard to agree with these statements. Admittedly this is possibly an argument from incredulity. Admittedly I am not an expert, I don't train aircrew, I don't design the tests to select good aircrew, I don't have years of industry experience. Yet, I don't see anything about being an introvert that limits your ability to take charge and assume leadership positions in professional setting, stressful or otherwise. There are plenty of high-profile introverts in stressful leadership roles. You say that introverts can allow themselves to be pushed around, but you could also turn the situation on its head and say that extraverts can push people around unjustifiably, and that that's the problem. I suppose this would fit the "unstable extrovert" archetype. This same pushiness could also be attributed to the "stable extravert", even though they are more likely to make the correct decision. Still, the stable extravert may assume they are correct, take charge confidently and win the allegiance (or obedience) of others, and then promptly kill everyone. My point is no one should push anyone around for the sake of it; ideally (key word) it should be rational and meritocratic decision-making rising to the top. Further, assuming "stability", the extravert will still have a tendency to take charge (which can go wrong as we have seen), and the introvert will still have the tendency to submit (which can go wrong as we have seen). Both are weaknesses depending on the context. So, why is the weakness of the extravert minimized, yet the weakness of the introvert maximized? Is it because the industry prefers a take-charge leadership decision to made right now, even if the decision is wrong? Is it better to confidently pull back on that stick until we stall into the ocean, or is it better to indecisively argue if we're doing the right thing? I can see why it might be better to do something rather than nothing (the "something" may be the right decision even if made for the wrong reasons), but we can all agree both situations are not desirable. I guess I don't see why stable introverts in professional setting can't be trained and drilled with good CRM practices to overcome their weakness and conduct themselves assertively, just as the stable extraverts in a professional setting can't be trained and drilled with good CRM practices to ensure they address their weakness and listen to others when making a decision before potentially blinkering themselves.
  6. Yeah, because that's a fair characterisation of what people are saying. :doh: Validity of personality testing (which is a grey area itself) and financial issues aside, I don't see any reason why a person can't apply and submit themselves to any selection process. What's the worst that can happen? They say no? Big deal. Any sensible and properly prepared person will realise that rejection is always a possibility. If he passes, then presumably he will be just fine as a pilot by your metric, because this life-saving personality test is so rigorous and scientific after all. You said yourself there is such a thing as an extroverted personality type that is not ideal in the cockpit, so clearly being introverted is not necessarily an immediate deal-breaker.
  7. There seems to be a grave misunderstanding by some in this thread of what an actually introvert is. Being an introvert does not mean you are shy, have poor communication skills, lack leadership potential, lack social skills, and lack confidence. Not at all. An introvert can excel in all those areas. All being an introvert means is that you require regular periods of solitude to relax and recharge your mental energy. This is as opposed to an extravert, who recharges their mental energy from regular periods of social interaction. There is no reason why an introvert cannot become a pilot, military or otherwise. That said, the introvert will always have to push themselves harder than an extravert. Socializing and networking is important professionally, and here the extravert has it easy because they find regular and sustained social interaction effortless, while the introvert often (not always) has to overcome significant inertia to feel like socializing. Overcoming this inertia requires willpower and metacognition, i.e. the ability to think about your mental state (which you should be practiced at as an introvert) and recognizing your moods and thought processes. You will regularly have to 'force' yourself to socialize and network for the betterment of your career, and it will be up to you to detect your moods and then decide if you are willing to expend your mental energy or not. This all seems unfair sometimes, but remember that everyone has their own set of problems - introverts and extraverts alike. Moreover, don't forget there are advantages to being introverted too. The key here is to recognize the challenges of your situation and equip yourself with the tools of metacognition. Understand that there will be times where you don't want to socialize, so come up with a system that will make you do it most of the time anyway. Expect difficulty and adversity and preempt your inevitable mental states. If you do this it won't be so bad. Take a page from the philosophy of Stoicism and you can work towards offsetting many kinds of adversities (read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius as a primer). It sounds to me that the big hurdle is already over. If you are as passionate about flying as you say you are, you will be able to offset and endure the discomfort of not experiencing as much solitude as you naturally prefer. Leverage the passion and emotion you feel, and convert it to a well of willpower that you will draw upon in tough times. And consider yourself lucky for finding your passion.
  8. Can we please try to limit the casual sexism? Not everyone who visits this forum and reads threads like these is 'one of the boys'.
  9. I'd like to know the answer to this too.
  10. That's just not true. You're taking a very simplistic view and are willfully ignoring what other people have tried to tell you. One example: Your RWR will detect a fighter's radar emissions at >100 NM and display a threat symbol, but that fighter is far enough away that he won't have enough radar return to detect you. Second example: In a tail-chase situation of >20 NM (or thereabouts), your RWR will easily detect an emitter behind behind you, but they will not be able to detect you even with the correct PRF setting.
  11. I'm not saying that the problems being talked about aren't real, nor am I saying that kinematics are the only problem. Furthermore, I'm not actually talking about realism and balance whatsoever. I certainly do not advocate making the game 'balanced'. War is not balanced or fair; each side can and should try to use the best weapons, technology, and tactics to completely dominate their enemy. What I am saying is that even if all missiles were 100% realistically modeled (all missiles, not just the AIM-120), from one perspective these missiles will still be "useless" when players learn the new missile envelopes from testing and playing the game. Rare exceptions aside, having realistically implemented missiles will not improve your K/D ratio unless the other side is criminally stupid and makes no effort to adapt. On average the better pilots will still defeat the less-skilled pilots, the only difference will be the precise tactics and engagement ranges used in the new missile environment. Exactly. Although to be clear, I do advocate making the missiles as realistic as possible, and I do not think the game should be balanced. My sin here is making a point that is only tangentially related to this topic, albeit one that is in my opinion quite illuminating about the mindsets of some people who get involved in these reoccurring missile performance arguments. I'm talking about the people who take partisan positions about their missiles for their aircraft of choice. I think these people, and it's a not-insignificant number, want their missiles to be as realistic as possible because they think it will help them get more kills (fallacy), not just because it's the correct thing to do in a simulation context.
  12. If we assume for the sake of argument that the AIM-120s kinematics are worse than they should be, what happens when they're corrected? A player's K/D ratio may go up for a time because their opponents aren't used to the increased missile performance, but it will drop back again when the opponents adapt to the change. For example, say that the average Minimum Abort Range for an in-parameters AIM-120 shot is currently ~10 NM or less due to poor kinematics. If the kinematics are improved, the new in-parameters MAR may become ~15 NM (or whatever). Therefore, for the first few weeks this difference of 5 NM will catch some people out, but they will quickly realise their mistake and act accordingly. When this adaption occurs the missiles will be just as "useless" as before. The only difference will be that the average range of a typical BVR engagement will increase, and that there will be less chance of escape if you get caught with your pants down. This is what gets me about this entire missile performance argument. Yeah sure, maybe the missiles suck, but guess what? Everyone is using the same missiles (relatively speaking) so the fight is fair(ish) and the average engagement ranges are well known by all parties. There are no 'secrets' in this game - anyone can test anything they like. Then, when the missiles get better, your enemy has access to them too, you'll kill or die just as much as you did before, and everyone will learn the new average engagement ranges. I honestly think that some people imagine that when missiles are improved, somehow they alone will be the only ones who realise it or have access to the new weapons, and subsequently they'll 'magically' start to get more kills. Funny how the human brain works.
  13. Based upon my experiences, learning BFM is not really something you can hope to achieve by reading books and guides and watching YouTube videos on your own. Frankly, most of this is a complete waste of time. The theory is necessary, obviously, but you won't be able to apply it without learning how to visualise what it all looks and feels like from within the cockpit. You get this by doing, by flying 1 on 1, preferably against a human opponent who is more skilled and experienced than yourself, and who is hopefully willing to provide instant feedback when you screw up. This feedback is critical. Absolutely critical. Without it you'll be lucky to amount to anything, and if you do, it won't happen quickly. Or, maybe you just so happen to be really good, but then again, it's funny how everyone thinks they're great, isn't it? In any case, without feedback you risk practicing and 'perfecting' substandard techniques, you risk not being able to identify your mistakes so you can learn from them (and how to learn from them), and there won't be anyone there to reinforce your performance when you get it right. No fighter pilot learns by themselves and you shouldn't either. The wheel doesn't need to be invented every time. Wherever possible and necessary, real-life BFM training occurs with an instructor sitting in the backseat telling the student what to do, what not to do, when to pull etc. What better way to learn what BFM 'feels' like? If you want something like that your best bet is joining a virtual squadron or asking around in the various TeamSpeak servers for someone to fly 1 on 1 with. Maybe someone who knows their stuff will help you sharpen your skills, or at the very least you'll find someone to fly and share ideas with. The problem of course - and it's a big one - is that a lot of people think they're good at BFM. They're not. A lot of people read a little bit about BFM and then they go burn holes in the sky at corner speed and think they're achieving something. They're HUD fighters who just align lift vectors and pull and pull and think that makes them good. There are almost no masters out there, really. Not ones who you find easily online anyway. If you really want want to learn BFM, I suggest joining certain parts of the Falcon BMS community and flying online and using TeamSpeak with them. In my opinion, there is a higher proportion of people in the BMS community who are serious about BFM and actually know their stuff. It's a different world in those communities and on some servers. That's my opinion, take it or leave it - I'm not going to argue with anyone who disagrees. By the way, if you think I must be good at BFM, you're mistaken. I suck. I am a 'theory reader' with knowledge from textbooks, but with no will or means to actually gain practical skill.
  14. You're correct, thanks. Chalk that one up to a brainfart on my part. :doh: --- Two things I would still like to know: 1. Why are some fields inaccessible? 2. Why are some controls seemingly duplicated?
  15. Thanks for the reply. I have this too. For example: There must be an underlying logic as to why this is the case. I don't know anything about scripting so I won't comment. Any developers care to chime in? I'm not sure what you mean by this. As far as I can see there is no "Throttle" category. I can change the category to "Systems" and this will display the systems controls including engine start/stop, but this is just a filter to manage the large number of controls. If you're talking about ensuring that the throttle column is selected, you can see in my screenshot that it is. Care to elaborate? I tried clearing the throttle column. Doing this does remove all throttle binds, but the inaccessible fields remain.
×
×
  • Create New...