Tutorial?

[Pitot]

As far as I can and do appreciate a good humor, I would like to see tutorials being a little more professional and educative for this module, just like the A10C tutorials/training is. And I don't really care about any argument as "it is realistic, you don't always have polite training instructors". I payed for this, I would like a proper product. Reading the manual is quite more enjoyable after going trough a detailed training in game - than stopping after every button pressed to find and read what is the thing I just turned on and what does it do. And yes, I am writing this after completing only the first mission in the training, but my first impression is so bad that I have to share it, even tho' I KNOW this is a well done module (from what other people say - and I do believe that).

Not being angry or flaming, seriously, but this felt like a major letdown. And when your customer has a first feeling that is described by that word - that is bad. Maybe I am just an a******, and nobody else feels like I do about this, and I am sorry if it's like that, but as a customer I use my right to say what I think about the product or some aspect of it - for the sake of mutual well being. Please, don't do this with your next module that you release. :smilewink:

Edited June 19, 2016 by Pitot

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

Maybe hopping into a ts server and asking someone familiar with the airframe would be better. Also asking around the forums for help doesn't hurt.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[grunf]

It's been a while since I did the training missions, but I can't remember anything wrong about them. A little humor is a nice touch.

 

They teach you the basics, the rest is up to you - read the manual, watch some YT tutorials, or ask here. :D

[John C Flett]

Been a while since I played them but I remember the first tutorial being the worst. Once you get into more advanced functions they become more informative.

 

Speech would really have helped though, especially for the ones where things happen quite quickly.

[grunf]

Speech would really have helped though, especially for the ones where things happen quite quickly.

+1

[Pitot]

Maybe hopping into a ts server and asking someone familiar with the airframe would be better. Also asking around the forums for help doesn't hurt.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

Listen, don't get me wrong:

OFC I will train with people while I learn a new module, OFC I will study the manual thoroughly, OFC I am amazed with how well the module is made (can see that from other people's gameplay and comments even before learning to fly with it), but none of that reduces the amount of misery in the first training mission. And I also said that I don't mind a good humor, but hey - I bought a DCS Module with training missions. It is not some freeware thingy - so it should be detailed and thorough. Humor is fine when flying with people, humor is fine on forums, training mission should be detailed and informative so you can actually learn from it on a higher level than just completing a check-list. Even if all the aspects (instruments) are covered in further training missions, this is still a letdown in my eyes. It seems like they were bored with making a cold-start tutorial, so they expressed that by making such _insert-adjective_ mission. :)

Again - no flame, no hate, no angriness - just a personal opinion and STILL thumbs up for Leatherneck.

 

It's been a while since I did the training missions, but I can't remember anything wrong about them. A little humor is a nice touch.

 

They teach you the basics, the rest is up to you - read the manual, watch some YT tutorials, or ask here. :D

 

Yeah, humor is a nice touch. Insert it after giving me useful info which I came to get. :) (in a training mission, that's the context)

Edited June 19, 2016 by Pitot

[mx22]

I went through the cold start tutorial only so far and was amazed about how unprofessional it was. This is a fairly complicated plane with a busy cockpit, having clear instructions on what is what and why would have been very useful. I also highly doubt Soviet/Russian instructors were/are serial drunkies, so what's the point? I hope developers take note and produce better trainings in future modules.

Edited June 19, 2016 by mx22

[Johnny Dioxin]

Think I posted something similar at the time - the guy sounds like a total douche-bag (as far as attitude goes). People who think it's great can't have ever been in the situation for real - it's just over the top rubbish, really.

 

After being a backer and waiting all that time for the module it really put me off. You can do it with humour and even with character without resorting to stupid comments - which makes me wonder if non-native English speakers wrote the commentary, as they often find things really funny that native speakers don't.

[Pitot]

I went through the cold start tutorial only so far and was amazed about how unprofessional it was. This is a fairly complicated plane with a busy cockpit, having clear instructions on what is what and why would have been very useful. I also highly doubt Soviet/Russian instructors were/are serial drunkies, so what's the point? I hope developers take note and produce better trainings in future modules.

Very nice way to put the problem in words. I hope the same.

 

Think I posted something similar at the time - the guy sounds like a total douche-bag (as far as attitude goes). People who think it's great can't have ever been in the situation for real - it's just over the top rubbish, really.

 

After being a backer and waiting all that time for the module it really put me off. You can do it with humour and even with character without resorting to stupid comments - which makes me wonder if non-native English speakers wrote the commentary, as they often find things really funny that native speakers don't.

 

Cultural differences are okay, but I kind of agree with you: If you are making a product for international target group, it is better to leave it without a "personal touch", than to miss in a way you described. I really appreciate the effort of Leatherneck to "break the everyday way of things", and I believe it was a good idea to do it like this - but realization was... Well, it was (is) like Lebron James going in for a beautiful, glorious dunk - and being blocked by Muggsy Bogues...

Edited June 19, 2016 by Pitot

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

Listen, don't get me wrong:

OFC I will train with people while I learn a new module, OFC I will study the manual thoroughly, OFC I am amazed with how well the module is made (can see that from other people's gameplay and comments even before learning to fly with it), but none of that reduces the amount of misery in the first training mission. And I also said that I don't mind a good humor, but hey - I bought a DCS Module with training missions. It is not some freeware thingy - so it should be detailed and thorough. Humor is fine when flying with people, humor is fine on forums, training mission should be detailed and informative so you can actually learn from it on a higher level than just completing a check-list. Even if all the aspects (instruments) are covered in further training missions, this is still a letdown in my eyes. It seems like they were bored with making a cold-start tutorial, so they expressed that by making such _insert-adjective_ mission. :)

Again - no flame, no hate, no angriness - just a personal opinion and STILL thumbs up for Leatherneck.

 

 

 

Yeah, humor is a nice touch. Insert it after giving me useful info which I came to get. :) (in a training mission, that's the context)

I had no issues with the training missions because I didn't use them and learned via everything else. Tbh I only use them to reacquaint myself with weapons and techniques

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[Pitot]

That is fine, but a portion of byers find it easier to go over systems and procedures trough training, before going in-depth. And that is not a small portion of them either.

[Art-J]

Well, the humor of the first mission was quite acclaimed feature on these forums back when the module was released, so go figure - different strokes for different folks.

 

Anyway, the basic function of the tutorial - teaching what to click to make things work, is there allright, like in tutorials from any other dev. I can only recommend not giving up so early and trying out the remaining missions - they're more "straight to the point". The only problem I can see is - the functionality of gunsight has been changing in last game updates (and is still very much WIP), so the current weapon tutorial missions might be somewhat outdated.

[Pitot]

"So go figure" - That is uncalled for and rude, as supposing that I am too shallow to figure it out. I am not. I will kindly suppose that it wasn't your intention to be rude...

"Basic function of the tutorial - teaching what to click to make things work" - no, in my opinion, one does not need to learn by checklist what to press, but to actually get a basic insight on what do instruments you're turning on do, and later improve the knowledge and get in depth insight by reading the manual (which is easier to understand and learning is faster if you get that beforehand instructions in the tutorial itself), by training and comparing experiences with other people. "Learning what buttons to press" is not an issue, all of us know how to use mouse and look around the cockpit. We don't need tutorial for that :)

EDIT: Who said anything about giving up? Pay closer attention to the point of the OP. :)

Edited June 20, 2016 by Pitot

[Art-J]

OK, I'm not sure, however, what Your point is. I mean, I understand what kind of a mission You would like to play. But, none of tutorial missions for ED, BST-made modules I own (no all of them I admit, don't even have an A-10C for example) offers anything above the "checklist" approach without getting much into details. So the MiG-ones are just no better or worse by comparison. There's always room for improvement though.

[gavagai]

I love the Mig-21 module and think it's among the best in DCS, but the cold-start tutorial is a pity.:hmm:

[Cobra847]

I hope developers take note and produce better trainings in future modules.

 

We did take note - of the overwhelming positivity!

I'm very sorry you do not like our training missions however.

 

We spent hundreds of hours building them, and they cover everything from basic functions, to navigation, to weapons employment.

Tutorials are really not the place to explain advanced functions of the systems you are using, especially the basic startup one. That is what the manual is for!

Edited June 20, 2016 by Cobra847

[cichlidfan]

We did take note - of the overwhelming positivity!

I'm very sorry you do not like our training missions however.

 

One might consider that not all unhappy customers register on the forum to lodge a complaint. They just shake their heads and walk away.

[Pitot]

We did take note - of the overwhelming positivity!

I'm very sorry you do not like our training missions however.

 

We spent hundreds of hours building them, and they cover everything from basic functions, to navigation, to weapons employment.

Tutorials are really not the place to explain advanced functions of the systems you are using, especially the basic startup one. That is what the manual is for!

 

First of all, no need to shout. Second of all, I am sorry your tone is hurt, not my intention. Sure, you had positive reactions, colored with emotions or not, that is fine. But also, you should take notice that people said that further you go - tutorials go better. And I didn't say nothing against it. Also I praised the module a lot here, and everywhere before this thread. But put your feelings aside and don't count initial joyful reactions for a minute here. Only if your work is perfect, and nothing is, you have the luxury of ignoring any critique you personally don't like. As you can see, a fine portion of people talking here agree that it should have been done better. Also, you saying "tutorials are not the place to explain..." - I never said it should be explained advanced or in-depth. Just at the level of, let's say A10C or Ka50 where you know pretty much about how those machines work even after the first tutorial mission. You get a good starting point in knowing what to expect. Your claim can directly be interpreted as saying that A10C and Ka50 tutorials are bad (GIVEN that I never said that tutorials should include advanced explanations - which is a fair base of your comment from my point of view). Also, I am very sorry you show so much hurt for me just saying my opinion and I feel obligated to say: YES, we know you spent hundreds of hours, YES we appreciate it far beyond those 50-ish dollars we payed for the module, YES we think it is a good module... BUT:

1. First mission feels like a letdown and it just does not drag you in, but it demotivates - and a fair amount of people agree with that;

2. Too many times triggers don't work properly in training missions, and you encounter them in the very first one (often) with the point where you close the cockpit (one example is enough, this comment is long enough as it is). I understand you are moving forward in developing new modules, and that is GREAT, but even so - you should know that DCS updates brake things sometimes, and instead of showing another repressed emotional outburst - someone could revise the training missions;

3. I never said that training missions should be as detailed as the manual, or replace the manual - I just said that they should be as informative as, again, Ka50 or A10C ones - where you actually learn a LOT about the aircraft and basic purposes of main systems;

4. Saying that "all 3rd party modules are like that" is not of any relevance and it is assuming that 3rd party dev's aren't capable of producing the same level of detail and professionalism as ED in their modules - and that is simply not true. And it is a bad thing to say, and it IS said trough such comments.

5. Again - I am sorry that you are, obviously, hurt by my opinion, but maybe you should respect those people who have an other kind of critique to say too, not just ones who run to praise. Maybe my intentions aren't bad, maybe I am trying to give you an insight into other side of story while you develop yet another module I am already certain to buy... Put your feelings aside, and be professional please, by being kind and civil even to those people who have small objections to your work. Fanboys and blind praising won't help you or anyone to develop as a professional, that I can guarantee to you. First day impressions are never a good anchor point for appraising your own work. Maybe us others have something useful to say to, and if you don't react in such a way, with listing hours and effort that we are all aware of anyway, but stop for a second and think it over - you might see the point. You can make a humorous mission that will still incorporate useful info. Some people buying Mig21 (not me, but it is still true) are new to DCS, new to combat flying sims, and those people will have more use of an A10C kind of tutorial than what you have delivered. Your tutorial is pretty much FINE for us who fly for ages now, because we know what is a radar, what is APU, what is battery doing... but for new players - as it is - these tutorials are almost useless because learning something "to wit" is just learning how to automatically press buttons. And again, it is far better and easier for a lot of people to go trough an informative tutorial before studying the manual in-depth than jumping straight in it. Tutorial gives them basics, manual offers real learning - just like with ED made modules listed many times in this post. You may agree or disagree, but what is important is that a lot of people who buy your products - agree. And that is why my observations are of use to you, and to the community, and are made with best intentions and there is no need to react like you have. But still, thank you for putting out any answer at all.

 

One might consider that not all unhappy customers register on the forum to lodge a complaint. They just shake their heads and walk away.

 

This is exactly why developers don't have insight into the real picture, and should care and be polite to people who aren't into kissing up, but want to point out the things that may be improved. I am grateful when someone points me something he finds to be possible to improve in my line of work. I don't go "but I have spent hours on that, and people told me they like it." I work on being a good deliverer to my customers. My main argument aren't dollars, or hours spent - but well explained things with reasons for it given. I get exclamation marks and sentences that, basically, make me feel like a developer just told me: "We have people who like it, so we don't care about you or your opinion. We will now, and in any point in future ignore anyone who says anything but praise us". That is not what I would call maintaining a good PR.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Pitot

[Art-J]

Just for the record, when I was writing about other modules, I included ED content in my opinion as well. Let's be careful about rose tinted glasses look over here. I've never had ED's first fully clickable modules (A-10C and Ka-50), but I trust Your opinion that the tutorials and manuals for these two aircraft are really THAT good indeed.

 

But with later ED-made modules, it's a mixed bag, ranging from Fw-190 tutorials being simple and sloppy mess, up to L-39 ones (my brand new purchase, just playing these!) being good and very entertaining, but still not going beyond "click here to turn X on, click there to turn Y on" with no deeper explanation whatsoever. Compared to them, the MiG-21 content is even better in many aspects. For example, its manual explains very thoroughly what the RSBN/PRMG is and how it works, while the L-39 manual flies through the same systems, offering only simplified and sometimes confusing description. Ironic, given the fact, that RSBN/PRMG in L-39 is modelled a bit more correctly than MiG's one!

 

So it's not like LN are the only "bad guys" here, as the quality of the manual/tutorial content from all the others, including ED, seems to be diminishing somewhat in recent years.

 

That being said, getting back on original topic, I would be more worried about future time when the -21 gunsight/radar/RWR/etc are tuned and finished for good. Some parts of current manual and missions are going to be outdated then, which might be a problem for new customers purchasing this product. Will the busy LN team find enough time to edit these?

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

First of all, no need to shout. Second of all, I am sorry your tone is hurt, not my intention. Sure, you had positive reactions, colored with emotions or not, that is fine. But also, you should take notice that people said that further you go - tutorials go better. And I didn't say nothing against it. Also I praised the module a lot here, and everywhere before this thread. But put your feelings aside and don't count initial joyful reactions for a minute here. Only if your work is perfect, and nothing is, you have the luxury of ignoring any critique you personally don't like. As you can see, a fine portion of people talking here agree that it should have been done better. Also, you saying "tutorials are not the place to explain..." - I never said it should be explained advanced or in-depth. Just at the level of, let's say A10C or Ka50 where you know pretty much about how those machines work even after the first tutorial mission. You get a good starting point in knowing what to expect. Your claim can directly be interpreted as saying that A10C and Ka50 tutorials are bad (GIVEN that I never said that tutorials should include advanced explanations - which is a fair base of your comment from my point of view). Also, I am very sorry you show so much hurt for me just saying my opinion and I feel obligated to say: YES, we know you spent hundreds of hours, YES we appreciate it far beyond those 50-ish dollars we payed for the module, YES we think it is a good module... BUT:

1. First mission feels like a letdown and it just does not drag you in, but it demotivates - and a fair amount of people agree with that;

2. Too many times triggers don't work properly in training missions, and you encounter them in the very first one (often) with the point where you close the cockpit (one example is enough, this comment is long enough as it is). I understand you are moving forward in developing new modules, and that is GREAT, but even so - you should know that DCS updates brake things sometimes, and instead of showing another repressed emotional outburst - someone could revise the training missions;

3. I never said that training missions should be as detailed as the manual, or replace the manual - I just said that they should be as informative as, again, Ka50 or A10C ones - where you actually learn a LOT about the aircraft and basic purposes of main systems;

4. Saying that "all 3rd party modules are like that" is not of any relevance and it is assuming that 3rd party dev's aren't capable of producing the same level of detail and professionalism as ED in their modules - and that is simply not true. And it is a bad thing to say, and it IS said trough such comments.

5. Again - I am sorry that you are, obviously, hurt by my opinion, but maybe you should respect those people who have an other kind of critique to say too, not just ones who run to praise. Maybe my intentions aren't bad, maybe I am trying to give you an insight into other side of story while you develop yet another module I am already certain to buy... Put your feelings aside, and be professional please, by being kind and civil even to those people who have small objections to your work. Fanboys and blind praising won't help you or anyone to develop as a professional, that I can guarantee to you. First day impressions are never a good anchor point for appraising your own work. Maybe us others have something useful to say to, and if you don't react in such a way, with listing hours and effort that we are all aware of anyway, but stop for a second and think it over - you might see the point. You can make a humorous mission that will still incorporate useful info. Some people buying Mig21 (not me, but it is still true) are new to DCS, new to combat flying sims, and those people will have more use of an A10C kind of tutorial than what you have delivered. Your tutorial is pretty much FINE for us who fly for ages now, because we know what is a radar, what is APU, what is battery doing... but for new players - as it is - these tutorials are almost useless because learning something "to wit" is just learning how to automatically press buttons. And again, it is far better and easier for a lot of people to go trough an informative tutorial before studying the manual in-depth than jumping straight in it. Tutorial gives them basics, manual offers real learning - just like with ED made modules listed many times in this post. You may agree or disagree, but what is important is that a lot of people who buy your products - agree. And that is why my observations are of use to you, and to the community, and are made with best intentions and there is no need to react like you have. But still, thank you for putting out any answer at all.

 

 

 

This is exactly why developers don't have insight into the real picture, and should care and be polite to people who aren't into kissing up, but want to point out the things that may be improved. I am grateful when someone points me something he finds to be possible to improve in my line of work. I don't go "but I have spent hours on that, and people told me they like it." I work on being a good deliverer to my customers. My main argument aren't dollars, or hours spent - but well explained things with reasons for it given. I get exclamation marks and sentences that, basically, make me feel like a developer just told me: "We have people who like it, so we don't care about you or your opinion. We will now, and in any point in future ignore anyone who says anything but praise us". That is not what I would call maintaining a good PR.

Well I'm sure if you read the manual and understood it you would have had no issues with the missions. Pretty sure you're the only one here that is complaining about not being able to kill stuff in the first five minutes in the seat. Take a minute, breathe, step back into it and look from another angle. Attacking people here will not help your case.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[Pitot]

1. I intentionally left out ED out of this thread, because all that should be said is said long ago. On the other side, from guys like Leatherneck I expect(ed) a little more care about what customers think.

2. No rose glasses here, trust me on my word for now.

3. As for A10C and Ka50 tutorials, I must say that I obviously compared the FIRST Mig21 tut against the first A10C and Ka50 ones. A10C is fully informative, while Ka50 one is less of a good example, but it is still better. The point was, however: The first missions in those tutorials are much more informative and immersive and after them you HAVE A DESIRE to open the manual and learn more about all those things mentioned.

4. Diminishing content: This is not entirely ED fault, or 3rd party developers. From the point where DCS became base of the game officially and 3rd party devs were included - the community is the one who's hunger for new content can't be tamed. ED might have succumbed to that (and I say that without putting any blame on them, because I find it a natural reaction to the market behavior) and so did the 3rd party dev's. As you can see, the majority of the community part that is talking on these forums are mostly concentrated on pushing "when will this come out, when will that come out". ED works for money, not for beans, so they have to try to keep the buyers satisfied (regularly fed with new content).

I would, personally, prefer not seeing a new module in 5 years, but then having that F18 properly done, F15E, Straights of Hormuz which was announced to be released by the end of 2014... etc etc etc... Instead of that, you can hear (ofc on team speak servers) about "infinite betas", "too bad there is no competition" etc, things that people are not saying here because they have done exactly what cichlidfan said here: "They just shake their heads and walk away." I don't want that. I want us to get finished modules and new theaters and enjoy DCS.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Pitot

[Pitot]

Well I'm sure if you read the manual and understood it you would have had no issues with the missions. Pretty sure you're the only one here that is complaining about not being able to kill stuff in the first five minutes in the seat. Take a minute, breathe, step back into it and look from another angle. Attacking people here will not help your case.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

I did not attack anyone, I just pointed out what I see as a flaw.

I haven't said anywhere anything about killing anything in five minutes, and your comment is absolutely off the mark. I am sorry that you choose to attack me, instead of discussing the matter I pointed out.

I am calmly explaining what I think and why troughout this thread, while you accuse me of something not being done by me, and you are trying to provoke a flame, which is a very rude thing. And you're completely off topic. Everythin I have said is explained in a calm and layed out manner. You have said nothing in the quoted comment about the matter, but rather chose to use personal attacks to prove that I am wrong. That is just... Nevermind.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Pitot

[Cobra847]

One might consider that not all unhappy customers register on the forum to lodge a complaint. They just shake their heads and walk away.

 

One might consider that, if one was lacking data.

 

We are not.

[Pitot]

One might consider that, if one was lacking data.

 

We are not.

 

Cobra, man, I really appreciated you until now, and I still do. I have respect for what you do, but please - don't go on us with such attitude. In this thread itself you have somewhat balanced sides on do we like that kind of mission or not. If you do know how to do serious marketing research, you'd hardly say such things out loud. As long as you don't show us any serious market analysis and interviews with user groups divided into sub-groups that correspond the target market age/financial status/region and other attributes important for creating a DCS market target group, with statistics divided into time frames of pre-purchase, initial release and at least two points in time separated in relevant time periods from initial release - don't pull out the "we have data" argument. In the form you just presented it, we might get the wrong picture from your 2 comments. The picture that you base your opinion on initial release comments and interviews with people close to Leatherneck. I want to believe that you don't base them on that. The only reason I've posted this is because I wanted to give insight into other side of story, and you act as if you deny existence of unsatisfied customers. That really puts out a bad picture. I don't want that, I want 3rd party developers continuing to provide quality content. The whole point is: It is nice to have humor, but make tutorials more informative and keep it like that without having a large amplitude between individual missions. Include humor, why not, but info too. As far as the "manual" argument few of you have put out - it is a bit rash. If we'd look things like that, DCS would not have ANY need to have tutorials, because it is all said in the manual. But there is a reason ED made a game frame which contains tutorials and I believe that, with a good point, the reason is that in that way you get better immersion, and you get encouraged to continue with learning the modules, while after completing the initial tutorial you don't feel as a complete noob and you can have confidence in yourself, go trough the manual, consult people etc. The first Mig21 tutorial mission does not learn us anything except how to press a sequence of buttons that is anyway listed in many places, and that the instructor had a shepherd, and also that he has paychecks due. Sure, it is funny, it gives personality to the instructor - and that is good. I applaud that initiative. But, I still stand with other people who wanted more. AND AGAIN I remind you that you need to take care about new customers who aren't in the FC/DCS world for ages, but are new customers who don't know the functions of APU, or Batteries on a plane, or any of the sistems they turn on in the first mission. One sentence per system is enough to make them feel confident and thus - make the tutorial rewarding. When in that mood, they are surely going to fully enjoy product and appreciate your work more. And buy the next module you provide.

 

So, all of you, please stop with personal attacks, stay on the subject; don't pull out fictional arguments without physical proof, or just ignore the thread.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Pitot

[Coxy_99]

Who the hell needs a tutorial, Man dont use instructions haha