PL_Harpoon

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.

I think the main problem here is not "why does the missile self destruct" but rather "why the maximum altitude is 6km?" I think what Fri13 is trying to say is that the missile can have enough energy to reach a target above 6km* and the radar is able to track a target above 6km*. If so, then why set an arbitrary limit and reduce your defensive capabilities if both the missile and the radar can surpass it? I've gotta say, I know very little about SAMs but it does seem strange to me. *provided that certain conditions are met

I agree with Odey here. There are no dogmas in dogfighting. The key in my opinion is to learn all the relevant techniques (1vs2 circle fight, lead/lag/straight pursuit, energy management, scissors, overshoots etc.) and learn to ability to decide when to use them. I think that while it is important to know your aircraft (and your enemy's) capabilities and limitations you may run the risk of being "too rigid" in your technique.

I wouldn't call one of the most difficult thing to do in a sim a "normal flying skill". As to answering this question as well as "Where does it stop?": because some people are asking for it and others think it's a good idea. Also because we're asking for something optional. If you don't want to use Easy AAR it would not change your experience at all. That's what baffles me the most. Why would you fight so much against something that doesn't affect you? As for your other answers... 1. Actually, I agree with you here and to be honest this topic turned into "a big fight over 5 cents". So yes, I don't thing Easy AAR is some "super important feature that must be included or the sim won't be complete". For me it's more of a nice thing to have for those who want it. I guess I dragged myself into this discussion because of how strongly some people are opposed to such a small feature request. It's like they felt threatened or something. 2/4. That still doesn't change the fact that with UF you can just start with 1% fuel, load up with weapons and use full afterburner during the whole flight. Again, I'm not saying AAR is super important, just that Unlimited Fuel is not a good substitute for it. 3. All valid arguments if you want to use DCS that way. I actually did just that, I've spent hours practicing AAR, carrier recoveries, or even simple traffic patterns until I got it. But who am I to force others to play the same way I do? After all, one of the great things about DCS is its versatility, also in allowing you to decide just how much realism you want. Easy AAR just expands that versatility. 5. Yeah, I did make that up and it is possible that they're not working on it. In that case it really would take resources from other projects. On the other hand as some here pointed out, LOMAC did have Easy AAR option and since MAC is something of a successor to LOMAC and it's on the same engine as DCS I wouldn't call my guess too far fetched. "AAR cheat is not a "FREE" option." In the end I understand your point. And I agree that there are more important things to do. A lot, actually. For me, Easy AAR would just be a nice thing to have, if possible.

Oh, I've read the entire thread and there are valid and stupid arguments on both sides. The thing is, even the only valid (IMHO) argument against Easy AAR can be countered. Here's the list of arguments I've seen so far (as I understand them). Please feel free to correct me if I missed one. 1. DCS is a sim not a game. That one is easy to counter because it's actually both. And we already have lots of other options to make it easier for those who want it (like rudder assists for WW2 planes) 2. Just use Unlimited Fuel. This one is also easy to counter as UF negates fuel management entirely while Easy AAR would not. 3. "Git gud!" This one is just plain stupid. 4. There's no need for AAR/ the maps are too small. While mostly this is true, there are many examples of missions that could include AAR (a fully loaded Harrier taking off from Tarawa is a very easy one). 5. Developing Easy AAR would take resources from other, more important tasks. They are probably already working on it, for their MAC, so it's just a matter of adding it to DCS once it's ready. 6. Changes like may be a sign of turning DCS into more arcade game. While I understand the fear it's not grounded in reality. There are absolutely no indications of DCS becoming more arcade, in fact it's quite the opposite.