Черный Дракул

Те, кто любит почитать, легко найдет что почитать, в том числе и про авиацию (особенно про авиацию!). Причем куда более интересное, чем нудное техническое чтиво на сотни страниц техописаний систем и принципов работы, смешанных с игровыми условностями. А если уж человек захочет полюбить себе мозг технической нудятиной -- он откроет, например, талмуд Страуструпа -- эта колоссальная потеря времени имеет хотя бы теоретические шансы помочь в дальнейшей жизни. На всякий случай напомню, что про авиацию в мануале А-10 относительно общего объема практически ничего нет (сейчас перепроверил -- про авиацию там со стр. 17 по 38, итого 21 страница не самым мелким шрифтом, т.е. 3%). Остальное -- те самые техописания. Так что если кто-то любит именно авиацию -- им точно не в это произведение. Если новичок пришел сюда читать мануалы -- из него, конечно, получится технически подкованный форумный боец. Но основная масса сюда приходит поиграться с игрушкой и попробовать сделать себе с ее помощью какую-нибудь игру. С переработкой радиосвязи и добавлением динамической кампании, возможно, ДКС превратится наконец-то в самостоятельную игру, которую как минимум каждому не надо придумывать для себя самому и которая будет способна заинтересовать людей. Но в любом случае, чтение мануала -- лишь вспомогательный метод достижения цели в упомянутой игре, а никак не самоцель. Если мы говорим о любителях авиации, конечно. Куда полезней осваиваться с английским не на сухих технических текстах, а на кинопроизведениях. Понятно, что полного эффекта "погружения в среду" не будет, а часть знаний будет неверна (носители языка очень часто не говорят так, как это делается в кино) -- но частично он будет работать: мозг очень хорошо запоминает на примере то, как делают вокруг.

Там нет современных самолетов и управляемых кокпитов. Ну, если нравится о/с в свою сторону -- то можно и без руководств. Но это особенно унизительно, когда за процессом наблюдают обе команды. А так там руководств куда как больше и игры эти в целом куда более сложные, чем авиасимуляторы.

Он описан в квикстарте точно так же, как и обычный режим. Mods\aircraft\A-10C\Doc\DCS A-10C QuickStart Guide RU.pdf Ñáðîñ, ïóñê âûáðàííîãî îðóæèÿ: [LAlt - Space] Îãîíü èç ïóøêè: [Space] И пуск, и стрельба замечательно описаны. В том числе и положение переключателя питания боевых цепей. Достаточно легко, если человек не впервые видит компьютерную игру. Во втором симе (из боевых) никакой ТП нет. Есть только форум, где можно у бывалых спросить. Впрочем, мануал там написан толково -- так что основная масса вопросов отпадает после прочтения нужных разделов. Другое дело, что квикстарта там нет -- и это плохо.

Это не так. Более того, в одном другом известном авиасимуляторе мануал читать приходится, потому что квикстарта нет, а миссии с обучением еще и на дополнительный мануал жестко завязаны. Не придется. По крайней мере, пока не понадобится что-то уж очень специфическое. Не что?

Well, Mover almost killed himself during his solo. Here's the debrief from the man himself:

Там есть настоящий мышеджойстик. Я писал именно о нем. В FSX не помню мышеджойстика вообще, честно говоря. Может, просто не использовал, да и давно дело было... Аркада -- это игра для игрового автомата. Никто, кроме логики продавцов жетонов, не мешает ей быть авиасимулятором. Новичку не надо читать мануал вообще. Есть квикстарт, которого для основной массы задач достаточно. Причем просто для использования самолета по назначению достаточно обучающих миссий. Мануал -- это если понадобилось посмотреть что-то конкретное в подробностях, которых нет ни в первом, ни во втором указанном материале (или что в нем вообще не описано).

Брат, ты же знаешь правила. Ладно бы еще упомянул, что на Нексусе можно брать. Там найти будет несложно. Но для местных ресурсов, которые явно дизайнили программисты, с чудовищной навигацией и сортировкой, ссылки просто обязательны.

А речь точно о мышеджойстике? Потому что принципы управления что мышкой, что джойстиком будут одинаковые. Просто там есть еще "прицеливание мышью", это другой режим управления, не мышеджойстик. Хватит обсуждать поделки криворуких внешников. Вообще не надо их вспоминать. Если бы их модули раздавали бесплатно -- не вопрос, как почти не обсуждаются, скажем, модовые аэропланы. Но я-то за эту Газель кровные отдавал в расчете на то, что какой-никакой контроль качества ЕД осуществляют. Опять-таки, вопрос же был о том, что у нас симулятор, а что -- нет. Я приводил наглядный пример того, что неправильная настройка летной модели и даже полное отсутствие некоторых критически важных режимов в ней не превращает симулятор в файтинг или платформер. Получается просто симулятор с плохой ФМ (в этом случае -- у данного модуля).

leads to an outright ugly and obviously wrong result. That should not. A general joystick does not have enough gimbal range to allow for 1:1 curves, and nav/dogfight response curves are not requiring precision that's demanded in AAR. Of course, there's always capacity of in-flight re-setup (mentioned above by me)... As clearly and multiple times explained in this topic, DCS does not have the tools necessary to learn AAR. Reinventing the wheel based on guesswork and building up harmful habits, as demonstrated above, is not learning. Perhaps because you need to learn AAR as well? And many other players that somehow think they've mastered it while in reality they have not? You guys don't even see how far you fall from what it should be. At least "watch bots do it" option allows you to see how it should be done, which is a great thing.

As I understand the topic up to date, no one has requested that... Pushing a button used as a bandaid when the whole matter can be fixed by developer is harder with every press, you know? This has nothing to do with FOV. Physical body makeup for a pilot cannot change that exactly because of how it works. Pilots are med-checked on a regular basis, so no anabolic steroids can be used to produce enough muscle mass to significantly push the spine forward. The only other option is accumulating fat. And while you've got to build an enormous amount of fat on your buttocks to noticeably move your lower body, the upper body has to be pushed by fat built on the upper back, which can never be big enough due to physiology. Also, males tend to build up fat on their belly, not on buttocks -- to get this big even on the lower part, one would have to be way over 200 pounds you mentioned (which will still not move the upper body with point of view). With that deducted, we can only watch individual difference in spine thickness and head size, which is minimal among our species. So no, different body makeup will not change point of view position far enough to make a difference. I think you asked them exactly what you have recited here. And we're talking not the geometry, but instrument visibility, which changes with POV sliding drastically.

After you've done it 10-20 000 times you'll notice it was actually not that simple. Workflow should always be as streamlined as possible because it piles up with repetition very quickly. FOV is irrelevant in this matter since it's the position that matters. With correct geometry, changing the FOV will change angular sizes of details, but how these details relate to each other (in this case, obscured/unobscured) remains the same no matter the FOV. It may well be. Try asking them again about default head position in the cockpit and see their point on visibility of several obscured items in the cockpit -- their opinion on this may differ. Just be rich and have everyone will repeat the same instruction. Simple solutions never stop to amaze.

Yup. Then he'll have to pause the game and switch response curves to their nav/fight values. And switch these all back when he decides to do AAR again. I think some feature is missing here. Also, he's a newbie, so I highly doubt he can do that -- I reckon he doesn't have a clue on how to approach the whole thing.

SharpeXB here deminstrates exactly why this approach is wrong. For practice to do anyone any good, one has to practice the right way and not practice the wrong way. Otherwise, this practice is actually detrimental. With what, exactly? Look at my video and then look at the reference to see I'm not doing it half correctly. With a bunch of visual and audio aids, as well as response curve switching, I would have learnt it much sooner and much more correctly. You, too, by the way, as well as any other trainee would. There is literally no valid argument against it. In real life trainees are just limited with current (50 year old) technology, but receive much more feedback both from their plane and their IP -- otherwise, they, too, would have been using it.

Before telling someone what he should do, perhaps you could learn AAR properly first? That might give your words at least some merit... Besides, you misread what I wrote. Again... There is a huge chasm between boom copulation and proper AAR, even if the latter is failed. You straight out can't AAR because you used the backwards training without pilot instructor. And proclaimed visual (and perhaps, audio) aids are the way to do it properly. Like I said from the beginning: your "practice practice practice" approach is flawed since you're practicing wrong. And when you've shown us your skills, it became aparent. Nothing can change that. In getting your virtual pilot back to AARCQ or to some desk job-- yes, you did Otherwise, I'm not so sure since I couldn't bear to watch this unporn you produced when you approached the tanker to the point you've actually finished. Like I said, it's actually painful to watch. NP, just slapped a quick mission and recorded outright with OBS: As you can see, I am at least making the effort to do it right. But with enough training aids, I'm pretty sure I can really match the videos I linked above -- in quite a short time.

Without a synched data modem and powerful processor, I presume that was the best the engineers could come up with. With the help of PI and proper training, this results in decent success, which is good enough. In no way this means it can't be made better, especially in the sim. These sorry boom copulation attempts make me cringe -- it's literally painful to watch (I couldn't even finish watching the first video). Like I successfully informed-guessed, you can't properly into AAR -- obviously, because of this backwards self-training you've subjected yourself to. This is how the properly trained individuals do it: Assisted training in DCS should bring you at least close to the performance demonstrated above. Being all over the place you demonstrated is not close, not by a mile. Like I said, people do crazy and unique stuff like completing DS series in one run with not being hit. It's crazy and unique for a good reason.

I'm sorry to take it out to the personal level, but have you any successful experience in AAR yourself? Because what you're telling here screams you've never actually learnt it. 80's: only TACAN and DFUA lights are available, everything else is imaginary with the help of PI. 2020's: you can literally draw a multicolored sausage based on same DFUA lights below the tanker, with gradations that can hint at losing/gaining relative peed or altitude, with an "infinite" centerline to try and stay close to and speed markers far along the way for training the approach. Let alone displaying reference points on the tanker hull and cockpit. In this case, PI is not a necessity since everything is visualized as it is and you can correct yourself, since you literally see how much you are missing. Here, you seem to claim otherwise. The drogue displays the sweet spot only until it is connected with a probe. Then it moves with the aircraft and no longer displays anything like that. And yes, the first and foremost thing I'm talking about is the boom-behind-the-cockpit method (which I have emphasized a few times), which is the least comprehensive of all. Improving all the rest is just an added benefit. Which, again, are almost invisible and have no HUD as I have mentioned just a post prior? https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/275382-air-refueling-cheat/?do=findComment&comment=4708772 And work backwards, displaying not a point, but deviation from one? (like I mentioned in the same post) Do you even read all that? You can safely deviate from the centerline up to a certain amount, which helps when tanker is entering turn (that's a quote). And for that corridor you have no indication at all. If you think that training like that is OK, you don't know training. And yes, "no clear indication" means exactly that's replied in two recent responses to your quotes -- "some indication" just doesn't do here. You have a clear indication of a current steering point in nav mode on HUD. "Deviation from" is not that at all. And that's exactly the backwards way to learn this stuff. Like I said, bad practice is bad. Also, you are incorrect. You tell wrong again. And this is a frightening tendency. Also, your description of your training corresponds with doing it the wrong way. That's exactly the result we can expect from absence of either IP or advanced visual ques we're talking about here. In proper training you are practicing this thing the right way from the start and are always corrected or forced to abort and retry if you start doing something wrong, with explanation on what you did wrong. Ypu do not have to reinvent the wheel... mentioned already in the link above. Are you sure you haven't missed the post?

My point is not having a HOTAS should not block one from doing complex tasks. And in the process it will help the ones without floor-mounted extended joysticks. My point is both 2D and 3D aids are in order to learn things properly and efficiently. Thankfully, the simulator provides the capacity that exceeds 80's semiautomatic information systems and may even exclude pilot instructor from the actual excersise.

At this point, you're just trolling. My points have been made as crystal clear as humanly possible. They have merit, as I and some others here see it, and have decent counterparts for other operations like navigation, landing and even carrier landing (which has its own mini-HUD popping up at the proper point). Yours, based on the idea of "practice practice practice, no matter if it's a bad practice", has been defeated (even with this single sentence). I think it's a great thing to reflect on. Like, the exact part that could be demonstrated with a point you're supposed to hold and relative movement of which could tip you if you're slipping? Tanker is far and it's huge, you will always have trouble judging small, gentle plane attitude differences based on its flat image on a flat screen. A point just outside the cockpit, on the other hand, is the minimum you need to instantly judge these and correct yourself, providing you with muscle memory of control positions. Having another point to aim at, some distance away, can help you with aircraft alignment by all axes. And when one is proficient enough, he can turn these off since he can easily imagine these, since he has seen them dosens of times and knows exactly how his aircraft reacts to the controls. And yes, alignment aids on the cockpit and the tanker hull can help you get into this AAR stuff if you're brand new (or even experienced with the aforementioned "practice practice practice" "training", since it's bound to teach you the wrong way to approach this).

I'm not. You cannot. Again, you cannot. IRL or with VR -- IDK, maybe you can, but on a monitor the difference in 0.2-1.5mph or sink rate of ~0.2m/s is hardly, if at all noticeable. Especially if you have an unpaused head tracker. Trying to catch the boom is the first step in unbalancing your aircraft and failing the task. Which are almost invisible and there's no interface doubling of these -- unlike, say, carrier landing visual aid that already exists in the game. I have. , except it's less than half of what's required and it's "shown" in the old, 80's way. Like I described above. And, like I described above, DCS can do way better than that, at least in training. They do not. The lights are for the case when you're already connected. And even when you are connected, these display not the envelope or the sweetspot, but deviation from the sweetspot. That's backwards, even if you happen to actually see them. I have -- and understand perfectly there's no clear indication of required aircraft position or envelope. If there was -- like a towed basket -- this would be easy to display with a screenshot. This visual cue, like I have clearly expressed above, is the root of the right wing. And it is not an indication of required aircraft position. Like I have told above at least two times. Please review my 3 last posts in this topic, where I have clearly described problems with the required aircraft position. Constantly telling me to "learn" does not add value to the discussion -- we are literally discussing the ways to improve learning. Besides, I'm pretty proficient in AAR, which gives me the perspective to judge the whole idea of "practice practice practice" bluntly offered by some members. And I judge it the worst possible case, since without pilot instructor you're just wasting your time and working up bad habits and wrong methods, reinventing the wheel in the process.

Sadly, you cannot. The position is always a virtual one, with no clear indication of both the sweet spot and the envelope around it. Let's take F-15C, for example. The refuelling orifice is on the left wing, so you can't use tanker centerline to guide yourself horizontally (the crutch in DCS is aiming at the tanker's right wing root). The height guide is "a bit below the boom lower end you can no longer see -- and keep it that way". If that's not vague, I don't know what is. Sink rates are not aparent (especially slow ones) and, unlike the real plane, you can't feel these. Slight speed mismatch is not felt until it requires for corrections, and throttle settings can vary. The extra graphics would easily solve these problems. With the probe-and-basket method it's much more easy since the basket is effectively displaying the sweet spot for you. It can still be made better, with some tanker-attached grid to inform you that you are speeding/sinking, while displaying how far you can deviate before it disconnects -- but the main problem is, of course, with aircraft using boom behind the cockpit method, like F-16 or F-15. There, the sweet spot is purely virtual with no clear indication. You can approximately guess it from the tanker view, but this requires long adjustment and practice -- that's where the main benefit of visual aids could come into play.

IDK. Probably that would require addition of actual missile frag patterns? At least they are attempting it now, which gives hope for frag patterns for air-to-ground ordnance. Having a visible envelope with a visible sweetspot definitely does not suck. Having a grid around does not, either. Having visible command lights, as well. Formation flying? Remember it's also rejoin and position switch, as well as holding exactly the same position. Besides, DFUA lights and TACAN on the tanker are already an attempt at this exact function, just with old technology: they tell you how much are you missing the spot and where you should move towards. And like all the old technology they are hard, especially for people with no prior skill. Actual pilots in the 80's didn't have more than this, their flight instructors and probably some simulations to help them -- but we're not in the 80's and not in the actual sky, so we can use more tools to learn and practice complex stuff. And no real fighter pilot would be allowed to drop a bomb IRL if they couldn't do AAR as well? Moving into the exactly defined spot in the exactly defined matter and holding there for quite some time is not a "formation flying". Yup, and then you just need to imagine where it is on your system, imagine the envelope around it and just judge how far you are missing it and correctly (! if not, you'll be practicing wrong) judge why is that so. Simple, right? Well, it can be helped with, you know, visualizing the whole thing, like People of Old were trying to (see my response to second quote above), but with modern technology and game engine.

You can see how someone else does it when watching a video. And practice is something you have to do yourself. If you could see the sweet spot, the envelope, the recoverable and non-recoverable envelopes, could feel the throttle adjusting your speed in tanker formation, etc -- you would receive immeasurably more feedback than just assuming (aka guessing, and guessing wrong) these things. As such, with the same practice you could accomplish far more, or require less practice to get to the same level. Well, that's the drawback of Flanker damage model that models everything with HE. Unlike Maddox Games' IL-2, where everything was modelled through shrapnel (giving overall far better results, but producing weird artifacts at HE pressure wave ranges). At least nowdays ED is updating the damage model -- who knows, maybe shrapnel for ground units is still possible. Well, there's only one way to improve this. Anyway, as was mentioned before, for a study sim to be a study, aids of all sorts are required. Some are provided, while AAR ones are not. And considering -- only if you're learning it right, where the effect is multiplied. I totally don't see it as a problem of any kind. This won't give these new players any edge against experienced ones, right? Especially considering ED is first and foremost PvE game and cellular automatons won't object. I disagree: there's no reason not to have fun, even if you're just started and don't have understanding of landing/AAR and skills for it. And seing a newbie autolanding is way better than tripping over his burnt frame on the runway.

This issue sounds very serious and should definitely be raised in corresponding topic. But overall, guided ordnance over unguided one is what makes modern aviation modern -- no wonder people tend to use it. Also, it doesn't look like some intentional simplification by ED -- just not modelling some aspects of employment. And I'm sure that with enough encouragement and information they'll not be opposed to implementing all the problems with it. DCS has a long way to go even up to one specific 22 year old game that is not-Flanker, so yes, that is correct. But even in the perfect world where everything will be implemented, a proper training for gamers is what will bring their behavior closer to what's expected of a pilot. And since we can't have an instructor, but have a flexible and interactive system, a complex aid system is the best way to replace him at least partially. It's already done in some areas and there's no reason not to do it in all the others. Again, if this is an issue, it should definitely be raised in corresponding topic. Hacks, as you have mentioned with the "damaging specific system" idea, might not always work -- they are hacks, after all, so asking ED to implement the required stuff is definitely a must. But seriously, in the worst case scenario (which is easily avoidable with implementin one more option to not switch on, which ED will most certainly do) there will just be some more successful air refuels -- and that will only happen if ED will (by some malificent will) force every server to having both options open. Having noobs air refuel like a pro's will not break anything. Yet these are required to learn the skills. And if the game can provide a better model of learning these -- like aforementioned aids -- that's an improvement, at least over blind practice. When you can see not only that you've missed (or don't even see that!), but even how much you've missed -- that's a great feedback to have. A human instructor will do that for a pilot trainee, but a player seing what he is supposed to "hit" with the plane will do a comparable job. This is exactly how many of interactive training missions work in DCS -- and I can tell that's a good thing.

Indeed. With advanced visual aids, voice assists and skillfully crafted training missions this would be a nice approach to how the actual pilots are being trained. I've seen a guy beat the whole Dark Souls series in one run without receiving a single hit. Crazy stuff is possible, especially given almost infinite attempts. The soundness of this stuff is highly debatable, though, as well as applicability in our discussion. I've missed this trend. Which tasks were simplified? "Virtual pilot" is a nonexistent condition. You can be a gamer, a pilot or both -- but playing a flight game will not make anyone a pilot. A game may be used as an aid in training, but in no way can it be a substitution for it. Intelligent practice -- like it's done in actual training, where you are told, shown and corrected all the way to graduation. "Just practicing" is an ideal way to build up your bad habits. Server settings are always at the will of server administration, no? If they don't want simplified, automatic, assisted or visual-aided AAR -- they can always not enable it.

Why assuming if you can scroll back a bit? All the points we were discussing are mentioned in my post you're replying to. One personal user's comfort never was in question -- all these problems are systemic in DCS and need to be resolved as such. Then having the capacity to turn on visual and other aids to train better, as well as other players being able to auto-refuel and whatnot will not impact your experience. Besides, if you were playing with floor-mounted joystick with extender, you'd have no need for response curves at all. Following your logic of dynamic/switchable curves not being necessary for gamepad controllers, how can we justify having the response curves for tabletop joysticks in the first place? If you did, you'd immediately see how immensely useful even pseudo-dynamic curves are. Preset switching for curves is just a single step forward from it. Why, exactly?