Effort and Reward

[StrongHarm]

I love my Hawg, as most of us do. Putting forth the effort to master the A-10C platform is so rewarding that it's clearly worth the time. The speedbumps and grey areas are part of the lure. I'm ashamed to say I indulge in reading the manual sometimes even though I've read it dozens of times.. it just rocks.

 

From time to time I like to take short breaks from my Hawg so it won't become tedious. These are the times I jump in my Shark for some rotor wing love.

 

I was compelled to drop a note for anyone who hasn't mastered the KA-50; the effort and reward levels are on par with the Hawg.. if not greater. It's a bastard of an airframe to learn, and the sensors are archaic and utilitarian, but OH MAN once you master it.. it's just a blast.

 

If you're looking for a change of scenery and want a challenge.. jump in that Blackshark. It kicks ass beyond belief.

 

My 2cents contribution.

[ricktoberfest]

I agree. The main issue being target acquisition and ID once you learn the skills

[Yurgon]

I was compelled to drop a note for anyone who hasn't mastered the KA-50; the effort and reward levels are on par with the Hawg.. if not greater. It's a bastard of an airframe to learn, and the sensors are archaic and utilitarian, but OH MAN once you master it.. it's just a blast.

 

Couldn't agree more. :thumbup:

[Dudester22]

I'm still learning the A10C, and find reading the manual frustrating at times. I have learned more watching video tutorials then I have sticking my head in the manual for hours on end and trying to put what I have read into practice.

 

I watched a video tutorial about the TAD recently, I knew all there was to know in under 1 hour of watching that video. If I'd of been reading the manual about the TAD, it would have taken me hours to take it all in.

 

I just wish there were more videos covering topics like weapon settings on the MFCD and also about the CDU. Does anyone know if any videos like this exist? I think there was a video by a Crew Chief once, but I can't seem to find it.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Dudester22

[Yurgon]

I have learned more watching video tutorials then I have sticking my head in the manual for hours on end and trying to put what I have read into practice.

 

I consider the manual to be a reference rather than a guide.

 

The Falcon 4.0 manual was a guide. It was extremely well written. It took you from "This is how aircraft fly" to "This is how you use the F-16 to achieve the mission" in a straight line, going from A to B to C and so on. It was intensely integrated into the learning experience by providing the background for all the training missions that came with the sim. It was fluid. While it taught stuff, it always had an anecdote to make the whole process much more lively. I think it's one of the best manuals ever written.

 

With DCS A-10C, the manual doesn't go from A to B to C. It explains the aircraft, and it does so in excruciating detail. It contains everything you ever wanted to know about the A-10C, and more. But IMO it's not a good source for actually learning how to fly the aircraft. It is, like I said before, a perfect resource for getting all the details.

 

I started my A-10C experience by reading the manual, got bored, watched a few videos, did the in-game training missions, read up on some details in the manual, read some stuff on the forum, and progressed from there.

 

Everybody's learning experience is different and there's no one perfect way to do it. I just think we should consider the manual to be a reference rather than a guide and everything would be just fine. :)

[StrongHarm]

I enjoy soaking up the technical details from the manual. I don't disagree, I think the DCS Warthog manual was written to be like a tech pub, like the Navy NATOPS manual (which I loved as well). The Falcon manual was epic, and co-written by an amazing Viper pilot. I still have the hardcover binder style 1st edition... and I keep it in a sleeve to preserve it. It's a classic that will never fade.

 

Dudester22, if you find the self discipline to give the manual a quick read (not thorough the first time.. just a quick steady read) then when you go back to it as a reference the dots will connect. The reward is WELL worth the time spent. People brag that they 'click learn' Warthog, but in the end the breadth of the subsystems do not lend to learning by chance, and those people invariably end up learning less than half of the true capabilities. Sure, not everything is in the manual, but it is a superb foundation... really the only foundation in my opinion.

 

Here's an old post from when Warthog was in beta entitled 'RTFM' that has some interesting poll results, but here's the gist of why the manual appeals to me:

 

I have to digress and explain why I'm so passionate about stressing the value of the manual. I've been callus and less than helpful. I apologize.

 

Up until a few decades ago, digital wizardry wasn't available. PCs were little more than glorified calculators, and phones had cords and radial dials that created sparks to communicate with routers as big as a house. During the emergence of this technological utopia we now comfortably inhabit, we were excited. There was something in the near future that was going to change everything. We couldn't wait to see what was next. Enter the military aircraft! They defied laws of physics and understanding as we knew them. How can that aircraft fly to a target at faster than the speed of sound, engage and destroy an enemy with ruthless efficiency, and return home with a grinning pilot? Black boxes.. intense mathematical calculations.. expensive new alloys.. secret sauce. We all wanted a taste of it. It was our gateway into this future we now know. Digital wizardry!.. and we could have a small peek inside through, what at the time, passed for a flight simulator.

 

This digital wizardry persists. These aircraft remain the most complex and effective machines ever built. But when you wake up and pay your bills, check the weather, watch the news, and make a significant purchase.. all within five minutes from your smartphone.. it's easy to forget that these steel dragons exist.

 

Slow down and open your eyes to this wonder. Read the manual, understand the hardware, THEN you can truly take flight and revel in the power you wield. Look closer and be humbled. The Warthog and ED will not disappoint.

[StrongHarm]

For those of you who don't like to read the manual.. or long posts like my last one... here's the smiley face pictograph version:

 

:thumbup: :book: :thumbup: :smartass::pilotfly:

OR

 

:joystick: :cry: :joystick: :mad: :joystick: :cry_2:

[Dudester22]

I have tried to get into the manual, but I'm just not good at reading and learning something at the same time. Not something on such a big as scale as this anyway. This is made even worse by the fact that this is the first flight sim I have played, so I really have had to start from scratch not knowing anything about planes. I'd say I'm about half way into learning the A10C though, so I'm getting there.

 

Funny that you mention the Falcon manual, because I have it right here. I bought the original Falcon when I bought DCS, but didn't get chance to play it. Do you think reading this manual from Falcon could help me with DCS?

[Yurgon]

Do you think reading this manual from Falcon could help me with DCS?

 

I think it could help you develop an understanding of flying in general. IMO it does a solid job of explaining the basics of aerodynamics and how to control the F-16.

 

While it is obviously focused on the F-16, most principles apply to any aircraft and there would be no harm in learning them from the Falcon manual.

 

When it becomes rather specific, for instance when covering the radar, it's still useful knowledge for other US fighters because their radars use some of the same concepts, but that's obviously not going to be of any help for the A-10C where the only radar is used to measure height above ground level. ;)

 

I enjoy soaking up the technical details from the manual. I don't disagree, I think the DCS Warthog manual was written to be like a tech pub, like the Navy NATOPS manual (which I loved as well). [...]

 

I think it comes down to personal preference. I know I'm not as proficient in the A-10C as lots of other people around here. The CDU, among others, is a system of which I've only scratched the surface. But I never set out to become the best virtual Hog pilot I possibly could. I enjoy flying the plane and using it in combat, I just don't have the desire to really learn everything about it there is to learn. That means that I use the manual to look stuff up whenever there's something I'm curious about, however I've never read through the manual in its entirety - there's just too much other stuff I'm also interested in. :)

[StrongHarm]

I think it comes down to personal preference. I know I'm not as proficient in the A-10C as lots of other people around here. The CDU, among others, is a system of which I've only scratched the surface. But I never set out to become the best virtual Hog pilot I possibly could. I enjoy flying the plane and using it in combat, I just don't have the desire to really learn everything about it there is to learn. That means that I use the manual to look stuff up whenever there's something I'm curious about, however I've never read through the manual in its entirety - there's just too much other stuff I'm also interested in. :)

 

I think you're right.. it's all about personal preference. I'm so adamant about embracing the 'study sim' aspect and fully understanding the platform because of the reward I've experience. It's exhilarating to complete a complex evolution without hesitating with the subsystems, or to pull something off that you know would have made you a ball of flame if you didn't have full mastery of the aircraft.

 

It's the difference between playing Highway to Hell on the guitar in front of a bunch of drunks, or playing Black Mountain Side by Zeppelin while camping alone. They both hold purpose.. but the reward of experiencing what Jimmy Page intended in that acoustic piece is so worth the time spent dissecting the true complexity of it. But that does go back to what you were saying.. it's personal preference. Some people aren't interested in exploration beyond 3 cords and a distortion pedal.. and like wise some people just want to blow shit up, then play a different game. I personally view it as a simulation of the complexity and hard won mastery that the pilots truly experience.. and for the first time (debate unnecessary) we have the ability to be fully immersed in an aircraft and (most of) it's subsystems. I'm just boggled as to why people wouldn't embrace the chance. The journey is it's own reward.

 

But you're right.. that's simply one man's opinion.

[PFunk1606688187]

I have tried to get into the manual, but I'm just not good at reading and learning something at the same time. Not something on such a big as scale as this anyway. This is made even worse by the fact that this is the first flight sim I have played, so I really have had to start from scratch not knowing anything about planes. I'd say I'm about half way into learning the A10C though, so I'm getting there.

 

I think you're the type of person who would benefit from using the manual at an intermediate stage of the process. Video tutorials are good at revealing quickly the actual methodology of using the system in context as well as in general. However video tuts are rarely exhausting in detail and depending on the style and knowledge of the creator can have some errors or rather significant omissions.

 

What then you should do is go to the manual once you have a strong feeling for a particular system. This will mean that you aren't overwhelmed with details you have no understanding of. It will mean that when you look at a picture that has every single icon the TAD can display on it you can then identify the ones you don't know, read about them, and integrate them into understanding of the system. You can also skim the parts you think you know pretty well and notice a few things you didn't really understand.

 

I am pretty patient when it comes to reading manuals but since the A-10 was my first modern jet sim ever I had absolutely no clue how to begin to understand its systems and so I also struggled with the manual. I watched fish's lengthy video about the TAD as my main way of understanding it, then went back to the manual.

 

Eventually I became so knowledgeable about the aircraft that I ended up digging through the manual for new things. The CDU was the last step but in the end there's only so much a youtuber can fit into a video. There are lots of really cool little things that I've never actually seen used in a youtube video.

 

Nevertheless, when it comes to tactical concepts you will 100% have to look elsewhere. Even youtube is rather thin on tactical concepts as most players adopt the "whatever works" model. In this respect the BMS manual should benefit you greatly since ultimately ground attack isn't too much different between airframes other than the speed factor which should greatly affect the choice of when to use a given tactic much more than the how. The how is pretty much a universal.

[Dudester22]

To be honest I'm finding the BMS manual much easier to digest and and I'm actually enjoying reading it. I'm also watching videos and learning the same way you did now. I really like Fish videos because they are straight to the point and easy to learn. I remember reading about the TAD and thinking hears another Sim that is just going to collect dust on my shelf. I then did a quick look at you tube and his videos were the first I saw.

 

I have all the DCS modules and haven't touch any apart from the A10C. I'm so determined to learn all I can before even looking at any of the others. I might be tempted to play with the F18 when it arrives though :)

[Yurgon]

I'm so adamant about embracing the 'study sim' aspect and fully understanding the platform because of the reward I've experience.

 

I think we both agree that learning a new aircraft is not an obstacle but is a reward in itself.

 

I just tend to reach a point where the reward of going deeper and deeper into the systems begins to fade and it starts to feel like a lot of hard work with little merit. I know that my life doesn't depend on it and I can perform most missions with the knowledge I have gathered along the way. When I encounter a situation where I fail because of a lack of knowledge, I realize there is more I need to learn and then the learning is directly tied to a specific goal and again it feels rewarding to overcome the obstacle and learn new stuff on the way.

 

Besides, let me turn your opening post in this thread against you. :D

Your original point was that the Ka-50 offers a great (learning) experience, a point I full heartedly agree with. But if I someone truly wanted to master the A-10C, when would be the right time to move on to the Black Shark?

 

The different DCS modules do soak up a lot of time. At some point I made the choice that I'd rather know a lot about several of them than knowing all about just one or two of the modules.

 

It's the difference between playing Highway to Hell on the guitar in front of a bunch of drunks, or playing Black Mountain Side by Zeppelin while camping alone. They both hold purpose.. but the reward of experiencing what Jimmy Page intended in that acoustic piece is so worth the time spent dissecting the true complexity of it. But that does go back to what you were saying.. it's personal preference. Some people aren't interested in exploration beyond 3 cords and a distortion pedal.. and like wise some people just want to blow shit up, then play a different game. I personally view it as a simulation of the complexity and hard won mastery that the pilots truly experience.. and for the first time (debate unnecessary) we have the ability to be fully immersed in an aircraft and (most of) it's subsystems. I'm just boggled as to why people wouldn't embrace the chance. The journey is it's own reward.

 

While it appears that you like to get way deeper into the A-10C's systems than I do, I kind of feel the same way about people who hop on the forum and ask questions about shooting stuff on their first day in the pit. I never expected to fire a weapon in any DCS module within the first two weeks, let alone the first day. It indeed looks like we all have our personal preference and our own approach. :thumbup:

 

Regarding Led Zeppelin, they're still mostly uncharted territory in my personal music collection. Something that should be remedied sooner rather than later if I go by Black Mountain Side, a song I just listened to for the very first time. :)

 

[...] Eventually I became so knowledgeable about the aircraft that I ended up digging through the manual for new things. The CDU was the last step but in the end there's only so much a youtuber can fit into a video. There are lots of really cool little things that I've never actually seen used in a youtube video. [...]

 

Very good points!

 

I have all the DCS modules and haven't touch any apart from the A10C. I'm so determined to learn all I can before even looking at any of the others. I might be tempted to play with the F18 when it arrives though :)

 

I had kind of the same attitude regarding BS and A-10C - but then the Huey was released and I instantly loved it. It's sooo much fun learning how to fly the chopper. For me, getting the Huey into a stable hover probably holds the same kind of reward as mastering the CDU does for StrongHarm. :)

[golani79]

Got me the A10C in the last sale and considering DCS my first real flightsim I must say it´s a bit overwhelming.

 

I got a bunch of modules now just because I´m interested in so many different planes and helos and I´m not sure if I´ll ever "master" one of it.

But I´m having such a great time in this sim and learning new things and put them to use is very satisfying.

 

Looking forware learning more about the A10C :)

Thanks for pointing me in the direction of some good video tutorials!

[StrongHarm]

Sometimes taking the shortcut ends up being the long way home. Watching vids and asking questions in MP will get you 70% of the way in an exponentially longer time. Reading (not memorizing) the manual takes very little time and provides further questions, and enough knowledge of the manual to know where to seek reference. This does require some degree of self discipline and interest in the details though, I don't disagree.

 

Yurgon, you're right, this discussion has veered way off course.. it became a discussion about the manual and level of interest in detail rather than trying a different airframe. Allow me to politely agree with you; the time to embrace a second airframe such as the KA-50 is really a matter of preference and level of engagement. If someone hasn't read the A-10C manual, no, I don't think they'll be successful with a second learning task. My suggestion is to master one rather than dabble in many... it's so much more rewarding.

[oscar19681]

I agree , best sim i had in ages ! Its The hardcore depth Sims like this have that make it so attractive for me personally . Its like falcon allied force only better and with better grafics . Also The a-10 is a Much more interesting aircraft as Well Because i

Like moving mud . I learned all The basics in About 2 weeks . But there is still plenty to learn About The warthog to last me enough time . Also The fact that The sim was used by real warthog pilots makes it even more interessting to fidle around with . Still haring Some trouble with effectieve ccip/ccrp runs .