The beginners learning thread

I also know that where the manuals fail, the forums may help.

So while most of the info 'IS' within the manuals, one may not find it palatable. So different formats can be of immense help.

Don't loose any sleep, but please don't give up.

One day it will click, your moment's of euphoric clarity will come.

 

Good advice.. :thumbup:

There's a difference between a reference manual and a technical manual. Now, a technical manual can be used for reference, but only after the initial reading and fundamental understanding. After the tech manual has been studied and understood, you can go back to it as a reference, rather than memorizing the small details that aren't always needed.

 

The problem I see is that people are using this tech manual as a reference manual from the start. They're taking the bird up and trying to click through, then when they get frustrated, they're trying to find that subsystem or function in the manual to close the gaps. Down this road lies madness.

I know that's how its being taught in some flight-schools but it is fundamentally wrong. It's a leftover from the days of Otto Lilienthal.. when aircraft didn't have engines to begin with...

 

You point your aircraft where you want it to go and use throttle to control speed. By suggesting otherwise you make things difficult and confusing. Flying is not rocket-science. People tend to make it more complicated than it really is.

This is the kind of thing (actually, the kind of discussion really so I am not singling chaos out or anything...) that gets under my skin, in flight sim communities more than any other. These squabbles about basic flight issues--invariably on topics that are basic to general aviation so you're going to get people with limited RL experience as well--wherein people make very one-sided, extreme declarations about a topic and then argue with one another about whether or not it's right. i.e. your garden variety internet pissing match. I dislike pissing matches intensely. They're more about egos and posturing and less about helping newer players get into the game, which this thread is apparently about and the reason I do my instructional videos et al.

 

The "power for altitude" thing was never meant to be taken as a literal description of how an airplane works, not in Stick and Rudder (the book that this principle is generally attributed to, and which was absolutely written after airplanes had engines in them) or elsewhere. Applying power will almost always induce some sort of attitude change, either due to thrust vector factors (the A-10 does, after all, have the thrust vectored a few degrees up away from the tail) and because of the very basic principles of how thrust interacts with lift. However, powering for your sink rate while you land is often a good way to wrap your mind around the process. It's not hurting anything to view it that way, and I personally found it very helpful when I was learning how to fly small airplanes. Unfortunately back in those days, PC flight sims were so primitive that you couldn't really duplicate this on a computer the way you can now. As it is, I'm loathe to bring 'real life experience' into it, because at its core, this is about video gaming (for me, at least) and not about telling a new player that I'm better than he (or she) is for having had the opportunity to fly for real.

 

You can find numerous general aviation sites declaring that the power for altitude/pitch for speed principle is the wrong way to view it, and numerous ones declaring that it's right, and still others that say other things about it--the point being, it's not necessarily wrong when viewed from the perspective of it being a certain viewpoint to wrap your head around when executing a landing, where you need to maintain a certain sink rate and stay within certain airspeed parameters. You certainly wouldn't view it that way when adjusting for cruise, for instance.

 

The point being, that squabbling about petty details isn't going to do a damn thing to help the OP learn how to land. I personally thought that this game is easier to land in than, say, IL-2:FB, easier than Black Shark, and it was pretty easy even with my aging, wobbly X45. But, I've been a gamer for years and years and take for granted certain things, I'm sure.

See now there's a useful bit of information that would have been most useful if included in the manual. Many thanks mate.

 

p463 clearly states:

"Once a valid ILS station has been entered on the ILS panel, the station is within operative range, and ILS is selected on the Navigation Mode Select Panel, you will be provided steering information on the ADI and HSI to the selected station (much like TACAN)."

 

From another post:

There's a difference between a reference manual and a technical manual. Now, a technical manual can be used for reference, but only after the initial reading and fundamental understanding. After the tech manual has been studied and understood, you can go back to it as a reference, rather than memorizing the small details that aren't always needed.

 

The problem I see is that people are using this tech manual as a reference manual from the start. They're taking the bird up and trying to click through, then when they get frustrated, they're trying to find that subsystem or function in the manual to close the gaps. Down this road lies madness.

When you are creating a mission, how do you know which end of a runway to fly from when laying waypoints ? What I'm getting at is - how do I know which end of the runway has the ILS beacon when planning my final approach in the editor?

Run the mission and see where you're directed to take off from. Or, just select a runway start and see which runway you're started on. You can memorise this if you find you regularly use particular airfields, and I'm sure there's charts made by the community with the info if you prefer that kind of reference; but if you want to stick to only what the game has, that's the easiest method.

 

Also, if runways only transmit ILS from one end, what about the theory that you should always take off and land into the wind.What happens then when the wind is blowing the wrong way? Do pilots sacrifice ILS in order to get a head wind?

 

In the game, some of the airfields will operate from a different runway depending on the wind set in the editor for that mission.

 

I'm not sure if the new dynamic weather will change that; but I think the weather is still more or less static for a given location (just that it'll be different in different places on the map). So I would still expect that for a given mission, the same runway will always be in use unless you change the weather conditions in the editor.

StrongHarm

 

I am using FC2, I reverted back to it to lessen the learning curve. I did state this previously.

There's a difference between a reference manual and a technical manual. Now, a technical manual can be used for reference, but only after the initial reading and fundamental understanding. After the tech manual has been studied and understood, you can go back to it as a reference, rather than memorizing the small details that aren't always needed.

 

The problem I see is that people are using this tech manual as a reference manual from the start. They're taking the bird up and trying to click through, then when they get frustrated, they're trying to find that subsystem or function in the manual to close the gaps. Down this road lies madness.

 

I don't think you've listened to me or appreciate where I come from. I use manuals in many modes. I am activity based. In the case of FC2, I read the intro chapters, then the chapters on the specific plane (again I am back in FC2 here). I even read the theory chapters (twice) - before I ever turned on a PC.

 

Then I want to start learning........

 

I do this by trying, Doing, Using etc ..... but in a reasonable manner. If you look at my OP you will see my structure. It's precisely that - a structure.

 

Right now, all I want to do is learn to take off, nav, land. That's it. I do not want to know anything about weapons ...... yet. Step by step you see. Do you get it yet?

 

I don't want to read the history of the a10 yet. I don't need to know about radar yet. I don't need to now about campaigns yet. Right now I just need to take off, nav and land. I have and will continue to practice this until I am proficient at it. Then I will move on to the next stage - perhaps that might be learning the radio. Do you get it yet?

 

Usability, Usability, Usability

 

Reading manuals is a great idea, really great.....if they are written from a usability perspective. A start, middle and end with the user at the centre of its design.

 

Now please, can we move on and back OT

In A-10C? It will be looked into I imagine.

 

Tharos, the ADI lateral yellow bar seems really bank sensitive. Is this normal or something that's still being worked on? Should I be able to use the lateral bar for ILS lateral steering?

I don't think you're really doing yourself any favors there.

 

StrongHarm

 

I am using FC2, I reverted back to it to lessen the learning curve. I did state this previously.

When you are creating a mission, how do you know which end of a runway to fly from when laying waypoints ? What I'm getting at is - how do I know which end of the runway has the ILS beacon when planning my final approach in the editor?

 

The runway your instructed to use will vary according to the wind. I believe this IS modelled in DCS but have not tested it.

I don't think you've listened to me or appreciate where I come from. I use manuals in many modes. I am activity based. In the case of FC2, I read the intro chapters, then the chapters on the specific plane (again I am back in FC2 here). I even read the theory chapters (twice) - before I ever turned on a PC.

 

I would suggest adding the FAA's aircraft flight manual as good reading as well. The A-10C manual is already quite large and it can't possibly include everything.

The A-10C manual is intended to give you operating instructions for the aircraft. Teaching you flight is beyond its scope although it does try by giving you specific procedures for take-off and landing.

 

I suggest using the checklists contained therein to help with your endeavour also.

 

It isn't a manual for operating software. There are no 'use cases' such as you know them, though there are checklists for emergencies etc.

 

Right now, all I want to do is learn to take off, nav, land. That's it. I do not want to know anything about weapons ...... yet. Step by step you see. Do you get it yet?

Here's what you don't get. Take-off is like this.

(Skipping startup, which should be easy enough)

Line up with runway centerline

Advance throttles to full power

Maintain runway or lane center

Steering off at 70kt

Rotate to 10deg pitch at Vr (if you're not sure what Vr is, use 130kt)

Once off the runway and climbing, trim, gear and flaps up.

Continue standard rate climb at 180kt or as required

 

Navigation: Set CDU to flight plan, check that you are heading to the desired WP

Set HSI as required

... fly around

 

Landing:

Set ILS radio frequency (if the runway is equipped with it AND you need it due to weather), turn ILS on

Get approach instructions from tower

Hit the glideslope either visually (with the aid of your FPI, your AoA Indexer, and the runway's VASI) or via ILS

If coming in via ILS and there is no visual with the runway at decision height, go around

Maintain correct AoA to aimpoint, then flare and land.

 

 

Yep, there's a whole bunch of little details inbetween, but you can ask for those you can't figure them out on your own. These are the very basics, and they are reasonably easy to remember and reproduce - every time.

 

I don't want to read the history of the a10 yet. I don't need to know about radar yet. I don't need to now about campaigns yet. Right now I just need to take off, nav and land. I have and will continue to practice this until I am proficient at it. Then I will move on to the next stage - perhaps that might be learning the radio. Do you get it yet?

How about learning the radio BEFORE you um, even learn how to fly? ;) I mean, ok, you don't really have to in-game, but if you're going to be THAT serious about it ... you kinda need to do it in a more logical order ... get it?

 

 

Reading manuals is a great idea, really great.....if they are written from a usability perspective. A start, middle and end with the user at the centre of its design.

 

Now please, can we move on and back OT

The manual is fine. It might not be in a format everyone is happy with, but again - IT IS NOT A SOFTWARE OPERATING MANUAL. It is written in the spirit of a -1 (from what I can tell) with a liberal spattering of additional information. Like it or not, it is a complex simulation. If you want more knowledge, you have to go outside of its manual - then again I consider it fairly comprehensive.

 

... but wait! If you read the manual now, we'll throw in these training mission FREE OF CHARGE! We can't do this all day long though folks, so please call within the next 20 minutes to get your FREE DCS: A-10C training missions! ;)

Hey thanks everyone for the help

The manual does have a start, middle and end. It may not be written exactly how you'd like a manual to be written, but of course they can't get it exactly right for every person. I think you just need to accept that it's not written in a way that happens to match the way you like to learn - it doesn't particularly match the way I like to learn, either. But the information is there, and you can adapt to use it.

 

I also think you're expecting an awful lot from a $60 video game. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to go to external sources if they need further background information to be able to understand something.

 

Also, it's worth bearing in mind that even though climbing the learning curve may be painful, it's something you only really do once. Limitations of the manual can easily be overcome by the player, and only need to be overcome once: resources spent on the manual therefore give only a once off, short-term gain. Limitations in the game will annoy you for the rest of your life: resources spent improving the game have a payoff that will last years for a lot of players.

 

Edit: you actually said it yourself:

I know you'll mostly disagree, that's because you all have some or indeed lots of existing knowledge.

Understand that total newbies are certainly going to be a small part of the customer base. If you were to ask yourself the questions in your post, and had to decide how to commit what resources you do have to producing the manual, you'd come to largely the same conclusion: most of the people already know the basic stuff, a good chunk of people already know the complex stuff, and you can't possibly satisfy both the new to flight sims crowd as well as the veteran simmers crowd. Unless of course you're willing to raise the price. But making everyone pay more so the manual can include information that's easily available elsewhere is a pretty gutsy move to make.

Edited November 23, 2010 by nomdeplume

+1 to Headspace's post.

 

I for one, greatly appreciate the videos put together by youand also by Tyger.

 

Thanks for looking out for the noobs.

Yea fair point. I'm just frustrated after three days of trying to understand a simple concept where the manual let me down yet again. Not loosing sleep though

 

Sweet Mary-Jane.........this entire thread has me confused :)

 

dnme - you stated that all you want to do atm is to take off, navigate and land. My advice - concentrate on the take-off. No need to worry yourself atm over navigation and landing.......Learn to get the Hog off the ground from a cold-start and move along from there.

 

I commend your attitude btw......There's no rush, unless you factor in the probability of the sky falling on our heads, but that's neither here nor there. Take your time and focus on one thing. The manual is a tad intimidating at first glance - no doubt about that. Use it rather as a reference than a 'How to Do' and develop your own style.....It'll soon come together and gel.

 

And yeah - if you are serious about mastering a High-Fidelity SIM (your attitude seems to indicate so) then you'll definitely be doing yourself an injustice by delving into LockOn. Nothing wrong with LockOn btw - it just depends what you're after in a Flight-SIM.

dnme, I have to disagree with you.

 

You continue pointing out how "weak" ED manuals are. No beginning middle or end. I completely disagree.

 

Flight Sim manuals are not supposed to be in certain order. Due to the immense amount of information required to understand and operate the systems there will never be a way to "properly" write a manual.

 

First, you need to know what you WANT to do. When I first started with DCS-A10 the manual looked daunting. I didn't think "Ow, ill read the whole thing". I thought to myself "Okay, so I don't know how to start up, let's read up the procedures"

 

After that, I thought "Ok, I want to learn how to use the TAD". Went to the corresponding page in the manual (using the table of content of course) and it was wonderfully explained there. Every time I wanted to learn something which I didn't know how to do, I opened the manual, found the "section" I needed to read. Read it, practiced it in-game, made adjustments and tried again.

 

I think the manual, while having some errors, Is concise and clear. When I reached the weapons deployment step, Deploying the Mavericks was one of the better explained portion. With step by step instructions.

 

You will always be flooded with acronyms and jargon you will not understand at first. When you run across it in the manual, Search it, it will most likely be explained. I too, did not know what SPI, SOI, Hooks, Ownship and all that kind of stuff. But a quick search in the manual backed up by posts in these very forums completed the entire picture for me.

 

Be patient, you will not learn EVERYTHING that quick. Reading and understanding is one thing. Implementing what you have learned is another, and doing it under "combat" situations is another. These things take time but most importantly they require your dedication. Don't expect everything will be handed to you on a silver plate.

 

My 2 cents, Good luck with your learning. I'm sure in no time everything will make much more sense.

I dislike pissing matches intensely. They're more about egos and posturing and less about helping newer players get into the game, which this thread is apparently about and the reason I do my instructional videos et al.

 

Headspace,

Even though you didn't single me out, I would like to comment on your post. What I'm trying to accomplish is keeping things as simple as possible. It has nothing to do with ego-boosting. It has everything to do with trying to help someone who's apparently having difficulties with the sim.

 

from the perspective of it being a certain viewpoint to wrap your head around when executing a landing, where you need to maintain a certain sink rate and stay within certain airspeed parameters. You certainly wouldn't view it that way when adjusting for cruise, for instance.

 

...and this is where it gets confusing, unnecessarily so, for a beginner. You have one set of 'rules' for one phase of flight... and the opposite for another. Wouldn't it be nice to have a technique that works for both phases? That's what I'm trying to achieve. I'm a great believer of the keep it simple principle.

 

I like your videos just fine and I think it is great that people are finding them useful. The more people get hooked on this sim, the better. However, the fact that somebody (i.e. me) thinks he has a better way of explaining things is part and parcel of being in this community. It is up to the person having trouble to decide what works best for him.

Edited November 23, 2010 by chaos

I don't think you've listened to me or appreciate where I come from. I use manuals in many modes. I am activity based. In the case of FC2, I read the intro chapters, then the chapters on the specific plane (again I am back in FC2 here). I even read the theory chapters (twice) - before I ever turned on a PC.

 

Now please, can we move on and back OT

 

dnme, with respect, I'm trying to help you. I am referring to the OT.. learning. IMHO the manual is a big part of that. Let's use your trying to take off and land as an example in discussing why reading the manual in such a complex simulation is important. You stated that you only wanted to learn to takeoff, nav, land.. nothing else:

 

* You posted questions about ILS, and how to choose the runway

- This would have been obvious from the reading on ILS and Radios

 

* You posted questions about the HSI, VVI, SPI, etc.

- These instruments would have been clearly understood by reading on instruments before flying

 

I worked on aircraft for the U.S. Military and after that I moved on to software and technology. I've helped write usability test cases and software manuals. I'm in a uniquely informed position to tell you that skipping sections of the manual will only increase your learning curve and time to understanding. You can't know what you can skip, if you have no base knowledge of what's in the manual. The history of the A-10C is probably heavily target to enthusiasts of the aircraft, true, but I can think of at least three important things about the aircraft that I learned in that section that made learning the next section easier. If you want to learn by doing, that's awesome.. there's a section for that. Overview, Nomenclature, Practical. I'm not being facetious when I say that there's a reason they put nomenclature (names of things and subsystems) before practical in the manual. If you try to skip around the manual you'll find it wanting, if you read it all the way through you'll find that it was very well thought out and executed (regardless of your personal learning style).

 

As an Environmental Systems Tech in the U.S. Navy I had to start the APU and Engines myself so we wouldn't have to bother a pilot every time we had to do systems checks. I had to learn the same emergency procedures as the pilot and I had to know what each and every gauge in the cockpit did. Sure, there were gauges that had nothing to do with starting the APU and engines, or with the Environmental Systems I was charged with troubleshooting, but if I didn't know what those gauges were supposed to say I wouldn't know if there was a problem with the aircraft that might be critical.

 

My long winded point here is that there are no unimportant systems or indicators. The manual is laid out in such a way as to give you an understanding of one system or indicator required for the understanding of the next function or system.

 

I personally will never consider a destination I'm going to and say to myself "well.. I know I need to head east.. I'm sure I'll arrive eventually" when I can just use google maps and know exactly what I'm about. Sure, the first six lines might tell you how to get out of your own neighborhood, but by reading it you'll know your point of exit, which is extremely important to getting on the correct route.

 

I understand that you want to get in the air, and I don't blame you for that, but initiate some self discipline (I say this with respect) and read the manual through first. I promise you won't be disappointed.

Different people learn different ways. Reading through a manual is not the "best" way of learning for everyone and making someone do that won't guarantee that the subject will be learned or even easier to learn.

 

For some sure, sitting down and trudging through a 700 page manual with no hands on examples might be fine, but for someone else simply reading from a book does nothing when they tend to learn better in a more interactive fashion. There's a reason ED continues to work on interactive, voice prompted tutorials. Because monolithic textbooks are not always the answer. :)

Agree with most of what you say. Need the manuals and need the forums both for the Working life and leisure life.

Not giving up and not loosing sleep over it helps immensely and the eureka moment .....Ohh....that is pure bliss...

This attitude helped me immensely in learning to drop LGBs (admittedly my mistake for not doing things properly and in the right sequence). Ofcourse with all the forumers who helped.

 

Manish

 

I also know that where the manuals fail, the forums may help.

So while most of the info 'IS' within the manuals, one may not find it palatable. So different formats can be of immense help.

Don't loose any sleep, but please don't give up.

One day it will click, your moment's of euphoric clarity will come.

Edited November 23, 2010 by openfalcon68

I cringed a little too when I heard of the idea of flying FC2 as a stepping stone to learning DCS:A-10C, especially if it was in the same aircraft. Similarly I advised people that flying Ka-50 in game mode wasn't necessarily the easiest way to prepare to learn Ka-50 sim mode in Black Shark. Learning a skill in a weird way is often more of a hindrance than not having learned the skill at all.

 

Stepping up sim complexity by doing FC2 first isn't necessarily a bad idea, it just requires a very careful mindset. One must continuously remind oneself that behavior seen and effective skills in one environment may not translate seamlessly into another.

Headspace,

Even though you didn't single me out, I would like to comment on your post. What I'm trying to accomplish is keeping things as simple as possible. It has nothing to do with ego-boosting. It has everything to do with trying to help someone who's apparently having difficulties with the sim.

...

I like your videos just fine and I think it is great that people are finding them useful. The more people get hooked on this sim, the better. However, the fact that somebody (i.e. me) thinks he has a better way of explaining things is part and parcel of being in this community. It is up to the person having trouble to decide what works best for him.

That's valid, I was only pointing out that it can sometimes be dangerous to denounce other ideas as improper, since that principle was something that really helped me wrap my head around the process. Obviously it worked differently for you and that is fine. I agree that it is probably a lot better if newer players have access to more diverse amounts of info and that is the point I was trying to make about how arguments can be counter-productive.

Can we agree that this manual isn't a training syllabus? It's very difficult to judge the effectiveness of something that is purely factual rather than instructional. If the facts are presented in the most effective order, then it is by definition effectively written.

 

Sure, there's a practical section that lists the steps to complete a task, but it's not a training syllabus. This is a series of technical facts written top down in order of operational function.. and in my opinion it does that very well. You can't understand B until you know that A exists and what its function is.

 

This is "How to program your VCR" not "Understanding Tai Chi Chuan". It doesn't connect the dots, but it very clearly defines the dots. People are trying to connect the dots without first knowing what dots exist and where they're located.

 

The thing that separates the RTFM crowd from the WTF crowd is the time and effort they're willing to spend in understanding the bird before trying to fully utilize it. Like in so many areas of life, the shortcut ends up turning into the long route.

 

The forums and training videos provided are very valuable, but they're not step one. This is not a question of visual or logical styles of teaching, as nothing is being taught. The manual is presentation of facts and nomenclature.

 

This is understanding what the VVI does before trying to use it to land. There is no shortcut. Taking pleasure and patience in gaining knowledge in organized steps wins the day and separates the professional from the confused. I can guarantee that you'll derive more joy from flying a hawg you understand than from attempting to operate with holes in your knowledge of its subsystems. My sorties contain no frustration, only devastation.

 

Different people learn different ways. Reading through a manual is not the "best" way of learning for everyone and making someone do that won't guarantee that the subject will be learned or even easier to learn.

 

For some sure, sitting down and trudging through a 700 page manual with no hands on examples might be fine, but for someone else simply reading from a book does nothing when they tend to learn better in a more interactive fashion. There's a reason ED continues to work on interactive, voice prompted tutorials. Because monolithic textbooks are not always the answer. :)

One you have mastered this wonderfull Hi-Fid sim and want to move onto engagement (my advice is to master navigation first), then please feel free to take a look at my Instructional Video Series located on my youtube page.

 

Regards, good luck and most importantly of all......enjoy!

 

'T'

 

Watched the video and thanx for the help!!! The key to these sims are repetition and practice.

Oh my god what have I started ;)

 

Folks

Please bear with me. I am doing my best, I have reverted back to FC2 in order to lessen the learning curve. I am activity based. I do approach the manual with a task i mind.

 

In my most recent example, I could not figure out how to engage ILS and I could not figure out how to get the radio going (remember now....FC2, NOT a10c). I spent days, asking on forums, re-installing, creating mission after mission and importantly re-re-re-re reading the manual.

 

It turns out that

 

1. ILS is transmitted from one end of a runway only

2. Radio menu key is actually # NOT \ (on UK keyboards)

 

The manual never mentioned either. This is just one example. I have others. That's why I find the manual poor.

 

I will admit to becoming frustrated in the past day or so and I apologise for that. Everyone here has a point and is being more than fair and considerate especially to me. Thank you for that.

 

I will end with this.

IMO ED manuals are weak for all the reasons that I have pointed out on these forums over the past few days. However they create the most spectacular flight sims ever. Stunning. I love the software and am in awe of the programmers.

 

I'm done.