PL_Harpoon

That's the biggest concern for me. "Would it pay off to spend so much time creating all those training material?" It's a really difficult question to answer because as you've said, all we have is anecdotal evidence and no real data. Anyway, I believe it would and frankly, as a user, not a developer, it's not my problem to solve cause it's not my decision to make. All I (or all of us, really) can do is to say what I think.

I'm not sure. There are many people who learned to fly with Falcon 4.0 or other sims from that era. That's because those sims included (either in the manual, training videos or missions) materials for those without any prior knowledge. Just look at this sim from 1997: I don't know where you've got that number from but doesn't matter, even it it were true, have you thought about why people choose other sims to learn flying instead of DCS? Also, why would ED develop a training jet if they weren't interested in teaching new players how to fly? All we need now is to make it available to everyone with detailed training missions (and a manual) and DCS could become a go-to place for people interested in learning virtual flying. As for the arguments that we already have a TF-51 - I think it's a great plane but IMHO it could be too difficult for new players where L-39 or F5 are much more forgiving and easier to learn. Because when it comes to tactics, for example, there are no golden rules, where if you obey them you'll be fine and if you don't you're screwed. I think it's much better to give users access to the most relevant information and let them apply this knowledge in the actual missions. A "virtual instructor" could be helpful here, but creating such a system would eat up all the resources ED has and it's not even sure it would be good enough to not be more of a nuisance then help. In my opinion if we're to suggest improvements to ED, that they can actually implement, we should stick with the ones that are feasible. Well, it is "basic" stuff for a combat pilot and this is a combat sim after all. Agreed. If you understand the concepts it is quite easy to apply it to any aircraft. That is when I don't agree. There's a lot of information in the manuals that you don't need in an interactive form, for ex. how does the hydraulic system work or what does the ASYM LIMITER does in the F-14. Obviously, theoretically you could do that in a tutorial mission but it just wouldn't be feasible. The idea itself is not that bad. How to implement it without spending months on development is another thing. I think a small text explaining the function of a specific switch would be a step in the right direction (not to mention that it would save you a lot of time from going back and forth between the game and a manual).

No, it's not. In what other game you spend the first 20 minutes in the options menu? That'd drive anyone away. Again, no. Neither of the two has any tutorials on the principles of flight for example. Also, it's not even in the manuals. There's absolutely no way you can learn to fly the aircraft in DCS without using external materials. I'm proposing a simple solution to make the learning experience easier. If you can't say why it wouldn't there's no point for you in saying anything. If you're trying to say that there's no need for improvements then 1st. You've already said that. Multiple times. 2nd. The fact that other people are specifically saying they have problems getting into DCS is the proof you're wrong. That's also a good idea. If you combine the two you'd have controls already set up from the start if you just want to start flying and a list of the most important bindings in a separate tab if you want to change them. Another good solution would be to have those 10-20 controls explained in simple 1-2 sentence descriptions so you know why they're important. I'm still standing by the necessity for a printable layout cause returning to options every time you forgot what button X does is a chore. That's why it's point no. 2, not 1 :) And there's lots of benefits of doing it. I know that I wouldn't even touch DCS if I didn't learn to fly in other sims and I'm sure there's plenty of other people who go (and stay) elsewhere because of that. By "more advanced" I meant things like tactics missile evasion techniques, advanced BVR, proper comms etc. Things that are by definition too dynamic to teach through a training mission. Things that apply to every aircraft, like turn radius vs turn rate, energy management, AOA, the turn rate vs speed etc. should be (IMHO) part of training missions mentioned in pt. 2. Also, one more thing. Let's make it pt. 4. The manuals should be available from the game menu. I'm not saying that the game should have a built-in pdf reader (although that would be awesome) but even simple links to those files would be a huge step up.

Ok, if this thread is to be of any help we need to backtrack a bit (20 pages or so perhaps :P ). From what I've read here there are three main problems with DCS. 1. The sim itself (as a program) is difficult to understand. 2. The sim does not teach new players how to fly the aircraft. 3. The sim does not teach enough advanced techniques. Now, no. 1 could be the result of the complexity of the program itself or a bad UX (user experience) design. Probably a bit of both. The most commonly stated problem is control bindings. How could this be improved? Hard to say but in my opinion the best solution would be if every aircraft had default bindings for every major joystick/hotas system available with a layout in a printable form (like a PDF file). That way, you could just start the game and immediately jump into the cockpit. Then, when you're already hooked up, you can still change/adjust the controls however you like. no. 2 is a bit more tricky. In my opinion the best thing for DCS would be to make one of the trainers (probably L-39 as it's a ED module) a free module with a fully comprehensive tutorial missions and manual focused purely on teaching the player to fly. Only further tutorials should include systems like navigation, weapons or even manual startup. Another thing is that every aircraft needs to have every implemented system explained in an interactive tutorial - see Razbam's Harrier totorials - in my opinion they should be held as a gold standard for every other module in DCS. no. 3 is in my opinion the most difficult to address. The good thing is that most players seeking that information are already beyond points 1 and 2 and generally should be willing to spend more time reading/watching videos. On the other hand I agree that there's simply too much information (and it's too complex) to include it in some form of interactive training. Also I agree that it would be too much work for ED to write/record all that stuff by themselves. However, they should be able to at least gather the most important information available in video form and create a page within the game containing links to those videos. The good thing about this community is that we are willing to help others and I'm sure that creators of those videos would be delighted if their work could be included in the game. At least these would be a step in the right direction.

That's because DCS is a game. It is a software developed for entertainment purposes. Just as Scat have said, it's not a training tool for real pilots. Doesn't mean it's not a simulator though. These are not mutually exclusive terms. Now, going back on topic... Regardless of what exactly Vertigo says, or how negative he is about ED and DCS, it is true that the sim would benefit from being more approachable to new users, including those who don't even know the basics.

I guess he meant the burst warhead one.

Let's not turn another potentially helpful topic into a pointless argument. Let's start again by finding things we can agree upon. a. Are currently available materials sufficient to learn everything in DCS? Yes. b. Can you teach yourself to fly an aircraft just by reading a manual, watching videos and using current tutorial missions? Of course. c. Does DCS have a steep learning curve? Absolutely. d. Can the learning process be improved? Sure. How about a discussion on how best to improve the learning experience for new players so they don't leave after just a few attempts?

As BIGNEWY it's still WIP. Still, it's miles ahead of what we had before.

Ok, I found the willpower to read through the entire OP and I agree with you, this "virtual buddy" is not feasible. Also, the fact that some aircraft are still in EA is a valid argument. My point is that with few exceptions the current tutorials are not good enough. In my opinion every aspect of an aircraft should be included in an interactive tutorial. Even passive things like cockpit familiarization is much more enjoyable and easier to learn in the form of a tutorial mission. I think it is. So what if Vertigo's initial idea isn't feasible. Threads like this allows us to discuss other solutions.

I think that's where we disagree. A properly made interactive tutorial is just like an AI instructor. It's not as good as the real one, and it may not teach you everything but it's way better than not having anything at all. Another thing, with interactive tutorials you memorize things by doing them. With manuals and even videos you need to memorize first and repeat in practice later. It's been proven a long time ago that the first method is generally much more effective than the second one.

"custom made mission" - if you're new to the sim, the Mission Editor is even more intimidating than flying the planes ;) As for why a tutorial is better that a video, I can compare my learning experience of the Tomcat vs the Harrier. The former took me months to get where I'm now, and even then there's a lot of things I haven't even tried. The only thing that keeps me back to it is the aircraft itself which is amazing. The Harrier on the other hand has excellent tutorials covering everything, from cockpit familiarization, basic procedures, aerobatics to various weapon employments. Not only I felt competent in it after less than month it was all a much more pleasurable experience. Of course it can be done "the old way" but it reminds me of old man saying "There's no need for a car. In my age we used to walk 2hr every day to work and we could make it!".

I agree. Perhaps one day we'll get a rework of radio commands and this will be a part of it.

First of all, who said you need to master all of those things before starting with BVR? Let's be honest, a lot of ppl play combat sims because they want to drop bombs and shoot missiles at stuff. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that approach. Secondly, it's not just a matter of finding the information on the right stuff. If you're new to flight sims you might not even know that there's such a thing as notching, f-pole mnvr, 1 vs 2 circle fights, etc. How are you supposed to look for information for stuff that you don't know exist? What I mean is, currently it takes years to get to the point that most of us (especially the RTFM guys) are. That can easily be cut in half or even more with proper tutorials within the game.

It's not that there isn't enough material to learn DCS. The whole point is that the learning curve for DCS wouldn't be as steep for new players if it was all available in the game, preferably in the form of interactive tutorials. It might be easy for ppl like me to learn from YT videos or manuals but I've been playing sims for 20+ years (starting as a kid with lots of free time to spend). I can only imagine how difficult it can be for someone who doesn't have that experience.

I doubt they'll be improved anytime soon. Mirrors use additional cameras to render their images and it would be a performance nightmare if they were to use higher resolutions.

It's already reported in the bug section. For me, I just use GAIN and SYM buttons.

I like the idea. Or it can be set to turn on/off depending on whether you have ordnance or not.

I agree. I can finally use the map now. Thanks ED.

Yeah, I wonder why they have instructors IRL. It's all in the manuals and there's tons of videos of real life landings. That should obviously be enough...

For starter, sorry, but I didn't read the entire topic. Too many lengthy posts for my millennial attention span :P Anyway, from my perspective it all depends on the individual but in my opinion the best way to introduce new players is a good set of ineractive tutorials within the game at different difficulty levels. For example: Beginner - basic flight, taking off, landing, traffic patterns, etc. Intermediate - navigation, bad weather, basic radar and weapon operations Expert - advanced weapons/procedures, AAR, advanced radar, etc. And I'm talking about tutorials that explain everything along the way WHILE YOU'RE DOING IT, instead of just saying "fly at x speed and y altitude and keep z deg AOA". Right now none of the aircraft available seems to have it. Right now in-game tutorials are really poor unless you already know 80% of what should be done with the only exception being Razbam's excellent Harrier tutorials.

I'm only speaking for myself (and I don't have real access to anything) I'd say that as long as there are legally available declassified documents on those aircraft these planes are accurate. I believe that when ED doesn't have enough official information about a particular system they don't make it interactable rather than make things up. A good example is the IFF system. As for 3rd party devs, it's hard to say but I think (hope?) they do the same. As for pilots saying that MFD info is classified I think it's just BS for simplicity's sake as some functions are classified and others aren't.

Unlikely. Anyway, I've tested the same thing today, on SP and MP and had no issues. My best guess is that somehow I've reset the Mav's and had to wait for it to warm up again as the symptoms were very similar (I don't remember the "time out" message and timer but I could've just missed them).

Don't know if this has been reported already but I couldn't uncage a second mav today. It was a multiplayer mission, so no trackfile. I was loaded with 2 MavFs as my only a2g weapons. Also no TGP.. I successfully selected and fired the first missile (Mav and SOI to left DDI, Uncage, slew and pickle), but after that I couldn't get the second one to uncage. Also, the Mav video feed was blank. I've tried everything, switching mav off/on, designating/undesignaying target, switching to a/a and back, changing SOI. All with no results.

Again, he's not claiming he knows how the system should work. In all of his posts he's just saying (and proving) that it shouldn't work like it is now, because it doesn't make sense. And he provided a lot of evidence why it doesn't make sense. What more do you want?

Uhm... there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding here. As I understand it, Fri is NOT claiming that the current implementation is wrong, so he doesn't need to prove that. He IS claiming that it doesn't make sense and at least in my opinion he did prove it. So, are you claiming that it is correct or that it makes sense? If the latter then I'm sorry, but you did not make a good case. You only explained why self-destruct mechanisms exist (which nobody disputed either). Look at it from another perspective. Why use altitude as a fail-safe at all? Why not set a timer? You know the burn time of your missile, you know how much energy it will have when the fuel is depleted. It would be easy to calculate when it should self-destruct. Couple it with a self-destruct when it loses contact with the launcher and your good to go. With altitude limit you create multiple problems for yourself. First, your target can fly just few dozen meters above 6km and you can't do anything to hurt it. Secondly, how does a missile know it has reached 6km? Every missile would need an altimeter and your crew would constantly have to set QNE for each missile. And even then a crew could set it to higher altitude by simply setting a wrong pressure. It just doesn't make sense.